On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
BRL>* Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030812 22:56]:
BRL>> Because "everyting is software" declarations does not really
BRL>> serve for promotion of any freedom, but, contrary, only for stealing
BRL>> freedom existed under the law.
BRL>Please note that there can be different definitions which vary by
BRL>their field of use. (For extreme examples see the definition of
BRL>ring in mathematics).
BRL>> Of course, there is some differences between countries, but
BRL>> they are relatively small regarding this subject. Under software
BRL>> copyright user get far more restrictions and far less rights than
BRL>> under any other flavor of copyright.
BRL>Please note that most other jurisdictions normaly have their laws
BRL>written in other languages, too. And in most countries the words
BRL>in the law have a slightly different meaning than in normal use.
BRL>(On example is murder. At least in Germany any form of killing
BRL> is refered to as "Mord"(murder) in normal usage, whereas "Mord"
BRL> in the sense of law is much more limited (intententions, lower
motives and such things)).
BRL>So while most jurisdictions may have different terms and some
BRL>may even state the term "software" in their laws (I guess most
BRL>will more likely take an more exact wording and only the
BRL>commentary refer to software), we still have to find a suitable
BRL>definition which of its meanings we want it to mean.
All above is very reasonable and wise.
But I still not understand, what you want to say me. Sorry,
my English is very bad.
Please note that there is substantional difference between
word "may" (or "can") and word "is". You read to me long lecture on
how the world may be arranged. Very accurate lecture, without doubt.
But I not talked about how world may be arranged. I talked about how
the world _is_ arranged. According to my poor knowledge, of course.
You see any factual mistake in my statements? Let's discuss it.
BRL>And just saying all digital data is software is the easiest and
BRL>most elegant meaning in this context.
In which context?
BRL>> In USA (and most of EU countries) you can legally rent copy
BRL>> of any copyrighted book - but not a copy of computer program.
BRL>I don't know about the whole EU, but I think I heared most
BRL>clauses to prefent renting might be illegal in Germany. (At
BRL>least noone should be able to stop you from renting a disc with
BRL>programs on it, don't know if anyone might allowed to copy it to
BRL>it's RAM).
Why do you think so?
AFAIK, article 69c, item 3 of German copyright law (I have
English translation of revision from 1998 year) clearly states that
distribution of computer program in the form of rent is a exclusive
right of rightholder, even for the copies, rightfully owned by
someone else. Unlike any other copyrighted works.
This exclusive right is demanded by European Copyright
directive, and I doubt that it removed since 1998 year.
May be you heard about another similar subject: distinction
between sale and rent, and a habit of some prorpietary software
vendors to state that sale of they software is really the rent?
Sale, of course, is not a rent and everyone who said othervise is a
liar.
BRL>It think the most important difference between computer programs
BRL>and non-computer-programs here in Germany is the ability to
BRL>protect non-human-generated pieced (like compiled computer
BRL>programs). Everything
Printed books copyrighted from the very beginning of
copyright regime.
There a many more important differences. For example,
software copyright is a single case, where set of exclusive right
interferes not only with distribution and dissemenation, but also
with normal use of lawfully asquired copy of work.
