It goes for copyrighted material, you can't copyright physical goods, only works/ideas.

We're talking about physical vs digital goods - copyright law is simply one method to protect the rights of the IP owner. You are buying a copy of a product for personal use. With a physical product transferring does not involve copying that physical good you simply hand it over - 1 copy is transferred with no duplication. With digital products, the transfer process is in fact a copy then delete process to ensure that the new copy was "transferred" by deletion of the original copy - there is an extra step. You have to duplicate then delete. Canada it seems assumes that the duplication process will be followed by the deletion. However, I find it perfectly reasonable to not assume that and allow for companies to ensure safeguards against "no deletion" during the transfer process so that the transfer process is akin to a physical good transfer. So for a right to resell they go with a DRM solution. For personal use only? DRM-free. Again, DRM-free does not mean right to resell.

For one thing GOG wouldn't be advertising on piracy websites if at all opposed to piracy. So it is quite absurd for GOG to specifically forbid lawful actions. The fact is that there is no need for terms and conditions because—as you just said—every country already has it's own copyright act (the ultimate EULA.) And again, it sounds a lot like you are justifying assumed guilt. It is strange to me but the USers here seem to understand that it's okay to treat the innocent like criminals so maybe it's one of those cultural differences.

Anyway, here's our copyright act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html

And here is a relevant section I recently posted in another thread. It covers format shifting, personal archives and transfer of ownership:

And I'm saying there is no difference, books are not copyrighted, the words that make up a novel are, words are no more physical than digital media.

Does Canadian law really prevent people from signing away their rights? In the US there are certain rights which one cannot sign away. Whether they like it or not they cannot sign a contract to be a slave. But one can sign away the right to sue if one chooses to do so.

Just because something is a right doesn't necessarily mean that one shouldn't be allowed to sign it away if one so chooses.
If you're referring to Abandonware sites, that's the norm. How else are the sites going to indicate where one can lawfully purchase the files?

Otherwise, it's likely that whomever it is that's handling the ad space hasn't told them precisely which sites they'd be advertised on.

In the era with only physical media, you had to actively copy before the transfer process in order to retain a copy. In other words, to get access to those words, you had to transfer a physical entity. The difference now lies in the way you are transferring the words. That's the key. When you only had physical media, the transfer is a one shot, not two shot process as it is with digital media. It is reasonable for a company to ensure it remains a one-shot process to keep things consist across media types.

you can sign away certain rights in a legal and binding contract, however non-negotiable contracts don't exactly count as such.

In the US, they are indeed copyrighted as well. I'm starting to understand why we in the US contribute so much more IP to the world than Canada does.
How do you guys conduct business then? Granted we in the US go way overboard, but if you can't do one party contracts it seems like that would cripple the ability to do online business.

Keep in mind that our famous "it's totally legal to download music from the internet" ruling was based on a comparison to having photocopiers in libraries.

I think section (b) of (iii) is entirely relevant. Proving that all the copies were destroyed. That's not really an honor system and why they said the person has to prove they've destroyed the copies if they resell it.

This isn't an issue of piracy or abandonware, this is an issue of right to resell.

That's shallow and pedantic. Yes, the literal book isn't copyright, but you're ignoring the fact that the presentation in book for is subject to copyright as well. At least here in the US it is. Hence how you can have a train or a bus schedule that contains only materials not subject to copyright law which is itself subject to copyright protection.

Unfortunately I got to get back to work. Nice debate though. :) Will check in later.

I'm glad you agree.


Correct. And which one should GOG really be concerned with?

Except an EULA isn't a unilateral contract, they promise to provide the game and you promise not to do anything they say you can't. Online business is, the business promises to give [product] to anyone who pays them [amount], with no stipulations on what you do, only on what they do.