Profile: wilcoxon
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • World of Warcraft: Blizzard Wins $6M in Glider Case

  • And some more DMCA abuses I went and looked up after writing the last post. I would have just edited them in but, for some reason, edit is screwing up most of the lists in the post...

    • Chilling Effects is an entire site jointly run by EFF, Berkman Center, and several universities about DMCA abuses (tons of takedowns and plenty of others as well).
    • A short article with links (and the usual comments) on SlashDot about takedown notice abuses.
    • A summary article on ArsTechnica of various abuses (mostly takedown notice again).
    • And a site run by a professor at CMU:
      • DeCSS case against 2600 over distribution of code.
      • Quashing of presentation of research into defeating SDMI (when the RIAA invited teams to try to break it).
      • Adobe vs Elcomsoft over Elcomsoft developing software that competes with Adobe Ebook Reader (since the Ebook format is "encrypted").
      • Very little on a case over cracking a block list.
      • IBILL (porn credit card processor) shuts down hacker site for posting unflattering commentary on IBILL's lack of security.
      • Sony quashes essay on memory encoding scheme used in Aibo.
      • US Customs blocks importation of Sega Dreamcast data cable.
      • Nintendo C&Ds Gameboy Advance data down/up-load software (used for developing Gameboy Advance programs).
      • Blizzard shut down BNETD (ground up recreation of Battle-Net which was free so no profit concerns).

    Hopefully, that's enough blatant abuses of the DMCA to convince you it is a terrible piece of legistlation.

  • Posted: 10/11/08 1:14 PM
    General Discussion
• • World of Warcraft: Blizzard Wins $6M in Glider Case

  • ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    I'll need to research this sometime when I have the time to, to see what the court's actual authority is, but here are my thoughts on the matter:
    The footnote to which you're refering is pretty clear. A lower court should not have the ability to rewrite law in order to determine the outcome of a case. A judge in the 9th district is not a lawmaker. His duty is to UPHOLD the law, not write it. His judgments and reasoning behind them can help set a precedent for interpretation. But he can't just decide that a law is wrong and not uphold it. That would undermine the lawmaking process of the country. The judge also did not mention precedent. He said -law-. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of black and white legislation.

    ---

    Except that they must be talking about precedent in parts of the footnote - "established 9th circuit law" pretty clearly says it's really talking about precedent. No circuit has any laws unto itself - laws are either Federal, State, or Municipal.

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    Copyright law stipulates that you are not allowed to copy anything unless specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. Fair use is the only exception, and those cases must involved education, discussion of, parody on, or other use that does not negatively impact the ability of the copyright holder to make money on that property. Copyright law states that if your copies negatively impact the commercial value of a property you are in violation of Copyright law (not DMCA law). Additionaly, he DMCA states that you may not make copies of software except in order to make that software function as it was intended to function. A very clear, important and -fair- distinction. If the software itself creates copies in RAM, no foul, no argument.

    ---

    I'd forgotten (prior to reading the brief and some of your replies) that Copyright covered some more vague areas such as negative impact on profitability and vicarious infringement. MDY is definitely guilty of vicarious infringement if you allow that WoW is licensed and not purchased.

    Glider probably actually increases income for Blizzard (directly by attracting a small number of players who wouldn't otherwise play and indirectly by causing Glider users to have to rebuy WoW once they are banned) but it definitely interferes with Blizzard's control of their online gameplay (I would expect this to fall under contract law due to EULA/TOU but it's likely again under Copyright if you accept that WoW is licensed (and not purchased)).

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    If you force a copy to RAM, because you are trying to circumvent the normal function of that software, you fail for three reasons:
    1) You have produced a copy that is not explicitely allowed by the copyright holder. The law is clear. If the author/owner didn't say it was ok to make a copy, it's not. Period. (barring Fair Use)
    2) You have allowed a copy of the software that directly and negatively impacts the gameplay experience of other people from whom Blizzard recieves monthly income based on their copyrighted material. You have, in effect, produced a situation where customer's of Blizzard can (and verfiably have) quit specifically because of botters. The fact that the copy of the software is specifically in RAM is only marginally relevant. If you were able to copy the software to another computer in order to allow Glider to function the result would be indentical, and the ruling would be as well. The end result is that the commercial value of the property is reduced because fewer people are paying Blizzard because of the copy.
    3) You have produced a copy in order to make the software run in a way it was never intended to run. A clear violation of the DMCA.
    All of these factors contribute to both the Glider case and the one refered to on Page6 Line6 for purposes of copying to RAM. If nothing else, the DMCA covers this clearly and undeniably, and the reason behind it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. It should , in my opinion, be law and be upheld. Can you state a specific reason why it should not?
    

    ---

    1. Except that Glider facilitates a Fair Use copy of the user (except that aspect of Fair Use is a violation of the DMCA). A copy in RAM for personal use is perfectly valid under Fair Use.
    2. Probably valid. I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be able to interpret some portions of Copyright (or most other laws).
    3. Definitely a violation of the DMCA (allowed under Copyright but irrelevant).

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    Correct. But Glider does not apply in any manner to Fair Use.
    Fair Use is only for purposes of education, discussion parody or satire, or purposes that do not impact the commercial value of the property. Glider modifies the gameplay experience of players, players have (verifiably) quit because their gameplay experience was diminished, Blizzard earns less money on it's product, ergo the commercial value of the product is diminished. That means, A) it is not fair use, and B) it is copyright infringement.

    ---

    However, speaking strictly of Copyright (not DMCA), a copy in RAM is a valid Fair Use so Glider simply assists users in making a Fair Use copy. If users have verifiably quit due to botters, that definitely gets into interference with profits of the rights holder (and the law doesn't care if there are other players who play because of Glider so that aspect is irrelevant).

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    I think you're actually refering to Page12, line7. Regardless, the court never even suggested that there could be a potential flaw in either the law or the MAI decision. It is clarifying that it doesn't really matter if the -fact- is that the copy was to RAM or not in the MAI case and that this case is 100% equivelant. The -fact- is that there was a copy, and that the copy is infringing, which is a matter of -law-.
    

    ---

    You're right. I was referring to page 12, line 7. The passage could be read with either interpretation. I would argue that MAI fails factual and common sense tests as a copy into RAM is perfectly valid Fair Use under Copyright (but often violates DMCA).

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    I'm not going to address the court case you think you remember something about that might have relevence. But I do find it pretty damn funny that you have chosen to skip all the DMCA stuff because it's 'probably valid' when the DMCA stuff is the stuff that you threw your arms up about to begin with.

    ---

    I don't blame you as I wasn't able to find it and I'm the one that remembers reading it in the past.

    Nope, my argument has always been against Copyright applying in this case. Here is an excerpt from my original message...

    ---

    Originally posted by wilcoxon
    This is a horrible, horrible decision. Copying a program to RAM on the computer where it is legally installed, should NOT be a copyright infringement (see many many analysis of why back around the time Blizzard filed the suit). Glider may (or may not - not sure exactly how it works) have violated the DMCA (the worst piece of copyright legislation ever passed) but it did not violate copyright.

    ---

    Reading that now, I see that I was writing only half-thinking as I should have mentioned Fair Use (for copying to RAM) and should have said Glider probably violated the DMCA.

    I detest the DMCA but was not going to argue that it did not apply in this case as I'm pretty sure MDY did violate the DMCA.

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    You continue to state that the logic is flawed, and that the DMCA is bad, and that it's all going to screw us in the end. But you have given not a single logical statement or defense of why you believe so. You have cited no situation in which the arguments are just not right that can't be clearly and undeniably refuted, and you haven't even come up with a reason why the DMCA is wrong.

    ---

    Just a few examples of why the DMCA is wrong...

    • Takedown notice provisions of the DMCA mean that sites basically have to remove content prior to any proof that the material is infringing. This has been massively abused (mostly by RIAA and MPAA) to remove tons of content (mostly song/video excerpts on YouTube and other video sites).
    • Make it illegal to bypass "security measures" to exercise Fair Use (eg copying protected CDs/DVDs for personal use). This guts a large portion of Fair Use and is technically insane (pretty much anything is considered a "security measure" regardless of actual security (CSS used on DVDs is a joke and there has been discussion that Rot-13 would probably be covered by the DMCA)).
    • Security researchers have been gagged from presenting valid research at conferences (often having to cancel appearances) because corporations don't want anyone to know there was ever a flaw in their program/protocol. In every case I've heard of, the researchers contacted the owner long before presentation so that the flaw could be fixed prior to any public disclosure. EFF and other groups have fought these many many times (and won most of them eventually).
    • Some clean room engineering techniques are illegal under the DMCA (mostly due to the bypass of "security measures") preventing companies from creating competition for the owner.
    • Modifying a "secure" data set for a program is illegal even if it is for personal use. Several filtering companies sued several schools under the DMCA for modifying the sites filtered by their software (eg valid sites were marked as porn and the companies either would not correct it or were very slow so the schools corrected it themselves).
    • If a software company goes out of business and their software was "secure", all users are out-of-luck as it is illegal to modify or update the software. There was a specific instance of this happening that I can't recall (I believe the rights owner sued someone over it even though the company was no longer in existence and could not do anything useful itself). I know this was considered in the last round of DMCA exemptions but don't think it made it in (though it may have).
    • I know there are other abuses but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

    Can you name one thing good in the DMCA?

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    What EXACTLY is it that you think the DMCA or Copyright law for that matter can do that it should not be able to do? I'm tired of hearing the doomsday rhetoric without hearing a logical reason for why it could be abused. Change my mind. Challenge my thinking. But dont just scream about how this is all so horrible without explaining how.

    ---

    Copyright itself is a great idea. The only major problem is the multiple extensions in recent years to the duration of Copyright (often prompted by Disney not wanting to give up Mickey Mouse and other characters and willing to pay lots for it (lobbyists, bribes (err...campaign contributions), etc)).

    I can't think of a single good thing about the DMCA. There may be some aspect of it that is beneficial but it is vastly overshadowed by the truly horrid parts.

    Back to Blizzard vs MDY...

    As I've said all along, I don't have any issues with MDY losing - I just don't think it should be under Copyright (DMCA and/or contract (EULA/TOU) but not Copyright). However, Copyright may be valid for some claims (interference with profits of the rights holder).

    I have two major issues with the brief which I really hope are overturned (but don't expect to be until there is a better case to appeal on):
    

    • A copy of any software in RAM (or anywhere else for personal use) should be valid Fair Use. For many programs, this would be a violation of the DMCA (but that's a separate issue).
    • WoW (and 99.99% of all software) is purchased and not licensed. The conditions expressed in Wall Data are appallingly broad and contradict earlier precedent (Wise and Vernor).

    
    

  • Posted: 10/11/08 12:49 PM
    General Discussion
• • World of Warcraft: Blizzard Wins $6M in Glider Case

  • Where to even begin...

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    
    Only have time for one quick reply. I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.
    

    ---

    Originally posted by wilcoxon

    The purpose of the DMCA is to gut fair use out of the Copyright Act. It was pushed straight through from huge corporations (primarily RIAA and MPAA). Even some of the original sponsors in Congress have said they never would have brought the bill forward if they knew how it would be (ab)used.
    

    ---

    
    The purpose of the DMCA is not to 'gut out' anything, the least of which being fair use. It's purpose is to suppliment the existing Copyright law that is inadaquate in regard to digital media. Digital media didn't exist when the copyright laws were written, and there are too many grey areas about digital media that are not clearly addressed without the DMCA.
    

    ---

    The stated purpose of the DMCA is to update the Copyright Act for the digital age. The actual purpose (or, at least, the effect) of the DMCA is to gut fair use and put almost all control in the hands of the creator (well, usually not even the actual creator - the rights holder). There have been many articles about this since the passing of the DMCA.

    What aspect of Copyright was inadequate with regard to digital media? I can't think of any.

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    The DMCA is also meant to criminalize the purposeful circumvention of protective measures within digital media. Anyone who has worked in the software industry for 20 years would know that... There's really a very very very limited few legitimate reasons to ever circumvent the inherent security measures in a piece of digital media. If you're doing it, chances are pretty good you're doing it in order to break the software, illegally copy the software, or use the software without a valid license. Or modify it's use to make it do something it was never intended to do at all. Any of these things should be illegal (and are). There's no moral dilema about it. The only one which even approaches being boarderline ok, is the modification to make the software do something it wasnt intended to do. If you need something that does that badly enough, make it yourself and dont ride on the coat tails of someone who spent what was probably millions of dollars developing it. And if you try to get rich in the process you should burn.
    

    ---

    Anyone who's worked in the software industry for even 10 years knows the DMCA does not do what it's stated purpose is. Fair use that can be illegal under the DMCA (and have had lawsuits filed over it):
    

    • Making an archival backup copy of the media (software, CD, DVD, whatever)
    • Copying a CD/DVD onto a computer/iPod/whatever for personal use
    • Doing security research to make sure something really is secure (or just to see how it works)
    • ...I know there have been more instances but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now...

    Then there's the DMCA take-down notice provisions which have been constantly abused by copyright owners to order takedowns of things that fall under Fair Use (video and song excepts on YouTube being the most often abused).

    Then there's also the DMCA categorization of pretty much anything as a security measure. CSS (used on DVDs), for instance, is not a security measure - it's a joke. If the DMCA restricted the limit to things that were actually remotely secure, I would have less of an issue. It's been discussed that Rot-13 would probably be considered a security measure under the DMCA.

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    What exactly do you categorize fair use as? In copyright terms 'fair use' would be something like displaying a copyrighted image in order to discuss that image, but not specifically to profit from it. Or to use the image in satire. But you can't take an image someone else created, and use it to, say, market a product or use it in a logo for a business or something like that.
    

    ---

    Fair use also allows you to do almost anything you want with something for personal use. Distribution is prohibited by most of the allowances under fair use.

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    Now in software terms, what exactly do you call 'fair use'? The only thing I can think of that would be a legitimate break would be something like making copies of a song for your IPod when you own the cd, and the cd has copy protections on it. But I've never heard of a prosecution of an individual with copies of songs or movies anywhere when they could prove that they had legitimate originals that they had purchased. Not unless the prosecutor could prove that the copies were in use in multiple places at the same time by multiple individuals.
    

    ---

    You weren't paying attention then. The RIAA and/or MPAA did threaten to file suit against people for having fair use copies of CDs/DVDs with protection. I'm not sure if they ever did file suit as their standard tactic is to extort settlements from people by threatening them with a DMCA lawsuit (P2P is a different issue).

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    You also mentioned somewhere in your post that Copyright is also meant to protect 'good of the public'. I'd love to hear your elaboration on that, because frankly I don't get it. The entire purpose of Copyright legislation is to prevent one person from profiting from the work of another, or preventing the original creator from profiting on his creation.

    ---

    Nope. The entire point of Copyright and Patent is to strike a balance. They are supposed to spur innovation (by protecting creator rights for a set amount of time) and benefit society by giving it the innovations once expired and to allow reasonable uses (Fair Use for Copyright) in the mean-time.

    In the last decade or so, this balance has been pretty well destroyed in regards to Copyright. The DMCA outlaws many Fair Uses and the "Disney extensions" (and previous extensions) mean that society has to wait generations before Copyright expires.

    ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    Please outline a scenario where the owner of a piece of intellectual property is harming the public by not allowing copies of that property or by making money on that property. Unless you're suggesting that the public would just find things a hell of a lot more convenient if they didn't have to compensate that creator for his creation...
    

    ---

    To summarize ones scattered above...
    

    • Disney is denying Mickey Mouse (and other characters) from the public domain (not a DMCA issue but still an abuse of Copyright).
    • Any software that can run on a stand-alone computer (eg not a MMO) where the company has used security measures to "protect" the software and then gone out of business. With it illegal to circumvent the security, all users are screwed. This may have been corrected - I know it was being discussed in the last round of DMCA exemptions but I don't recall if it was approved.
    • Security researchers find a flaw in a program or protocol and report it to the rights owner ahead of time so that it can be fixed before disclosure. In far too many cases, the rights owner uses the DMCA to gag the researcher. In almost every case, this has been overturned but it is a dis-service to the researcher and the public (on multiple occasions, researchers have had to cancel conference appearances while fighting the gag).

    As I've said several time, I think MDY should lose but not on Copyright grounds (on DMCA and EULA/TOU grounds).

  • Posted: 10/10/08 11:20 AM
    General Discussion
• • World of Warcraft: Blizzard Wins $6M in Glider Case

  • ---

    Originally posted by Feyshtey
    Are you aware of what the DMCA acronym stands for? Allow me to enlighten...
    Digital Media COPYRIGHT Act

    ---

    Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It does not replace or directly amend the Copyright Act. In every legal case, Copyright violation is mentioned separate from DMCA violation. Therefore, DMCA violation does not equate to Copyright violation.

    ---

    Orginally posted by Feyshtey
    If Glider violated the DMCA, then it inherently violated the Copyright.
    The purpose of the DMCA is to criminalize methods of circumventing protective measures on digital media, and to persecute those who illegally copy and distribute digital media.

    ---

    The purpose of the DMCA is to gut fair use out of the Copyright Act. It was pushed straight through from huge corporations (primarily RIAA and MPAA). Even some of the original sponsors in Congress have said they never would have brought the bill forward if they knew how it would be (ab)used.

    I've worked in the software industry (one of the supposed "helped" industries) for almost 20 years and the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation. Even worse is software patents but that's a separate issue.

    ---

    Orginally posted by Feyshtey
    There's no legitimate reason to purposefully force a program into RAM to evade it's security except for MAYBE troubleshooting permissions issues with the program's intended function. In a case like that if your measures actually uncovered a flaw in the program, I'd bet that most companies would be thankful if you pointed the flaw out to them!

    ---

    Security researchers have (on multiple occasions) disclosed flaws to the producer so that they could fix the issue prior to any public disclosure and been slapped with DMCA lawsuits to keep them from ever disclosing the flaws. Fortunately, the corporations have lost the majority of these type lawsuits.

    ---

    Orginally posted by Feyshtey
    What's ridiculous is all the people spouting off about this when it's abundantly clear they haven't bothered to actually READ THE RULING.

    Look, none of this is really that complicated. Copyright Law is meant to protect the creators of intellectual property, and the intellectual property itself, from sabotuers, thieves and exploiters that damage that property. That is exactly why this case turned out the way it did. There were exploiters actively damaging Blizzard's intellectual property, and they got a stake driven right through there little vampiric hearts. There's no precident that's going to screw you over, unless you are one of these ****ing parasites that needs a stake through your heart too. There's no ruling here that removes protections from you, or your rights, or sets up Microsoft to finally complete its domination of the world that you're surely suffering cold sweats and ensomnia over nightly.

    I'd encourage you all to actually read the court's judgment brief available here:
    http://virtuallyblind.com/files/mdy/07-14-08_Order.pdf
    You're likely to actually know what was argued, what was ruled in favor of Blizzard, and what was not. (Blizzard didn't actually win every single Count in it's arguments.) You're also less likely to completely confuse the issues with all this ignorant hysterical rhetoric.

    ---

    Actually, Copyright (and Patent) law is supposed to strike a balance between the rights of the creators and the good of the public. In recent years, courts have destroyed the balance and sided way too often with the creators (aided massively by the hideous DMCA).

    Fine. I'm now going through the brief and I'll argue things directly from there if it will make you happy...

    Page 5, line 14: MDY's argument is spot on.

    Page 5, footnote 3: What? Since when is a court not allowed to go against previous precedent? This happens all the time. It's the job of the appeals court to rule on which to uphold (if an appeal is filed based on the decision going against precedent). The judge copped out in a massive way.

    Page 6, line 6: Fine. Given the above, he "had" to rule this way. MAI Sys Corp v Peak Computer, Inc was a terrible decision. Either that case or this one should be (have been) appealed.

    Page 6, line 12-#1: Does the user have to agree to the EULA before installing WoW or only before playing? I don't rememember. If it is when installing, Blizzard's claims seem valid. If it is only when playing, the EULA at least partially invalidates itself (since software has already been installed) and MDY's claims are valid.

    However, I believe it has been previously established that bulk retail software does not meet the terms of licensed product (not having to return/destroy the product if not licensed, etc) so it would fall under first sale doctrine (you bought it, you can do what you want with it (except see DMCA)) and not licensed software (which invalidates Blizzard's claims). However, the connections to Blizzard's servers would almost certainly be seen as limited by contract (or license).

    Page 9, line 11: Copying and modifying of works are allowed under fair use. Distributing software that allows users to conduct fair use are not a violation of Copyright.

    Page 11, line 1: It's normal but I hate those clauses that stipulate a EULA/TOU are bound by some other state's laws. I can see why the corporations do it but it should be a burden on the corporation to make sure they follow all state laws (or can't sell their product there) rather than a burden on the consumer to make sure they know what license and contract laws are in the stated state (DE in this case). It's irrelevant for this specific case though...

    Page 11, line 7: And here is why I hate lawyers - "whether the loading of software
    into RAM constitutes "copying" for purposes of copyright law is a legal, not a factual,
    question". So, the court admits there is (at least possible) factual flaws in the MAI decision but still uses it as a basis for this case.

    Page 13, line 12: *sigh* Remind me to make sure I never end up with a lawsuit in the 9th circuit. The conditions specified for licensee vs owner in Wall Data are much too broad and contradict other legal precedent (can't find the case right now - presumably it's not 9th circuit). I believe the case I'm thinking of involved Sun Microsystems but I can't find it with a quick search (and it's been quite a while since I read it). Based on page 15, line 21, it sounds like the case I'm thinking of was an extension of US v Wise and/or Vernor (that was one of the conditions but there were a few others and it involved software rather than movies).

    I skipped the DMCA and other claims as they are probably valid.

    Given the highly flawed (but legal) logic used by the court to determine ownership vs licensee and if copying something to RAM constitutes a "copy" (in the Copyright sense), it's hard to refute their decision. I can only hope this case gets appealed (to the Supreme Court if needed). While MDY should probably lose the case, the Copyright precedent set in this case (and referenced cases) in the 9th circuit need to be shot down in flames. Unfortunately, the possible relevant parties (EFF, ACLU, etc) will probably wait for a better case to appeal on (unfortunately, that piles up even more bad legal precedent).

  • Posted: 10/09/08 12:21 PM
    General Discussion
• • World of Warcraft: Blizzard Wins $6M in Glider Case

  • ---

    Originally posted by nakuma

    it was made for the sole purpose of exploiting the game for financial & personal gain. I am sure they made alot of money, (most likely regular joes bought it as well a crapload of farmer shops). this game allows you to get both in gold, leveling speed that you cnt do if u played manually. in that they also charged a profit to an individual and made out like bandits. it contradicted as well as utilized the client code in order to "function" and " move" or otherwise " use the character" in such a fashion that was autonomous, with no need for intervention from the player directly,so there fore it was a direct violation of the EULA/TOS. "reverse engineering" of the code to exploit/use it for your own personal gain othe than what it was intended.

    I think what you are doing is justifying criminals of their crimes. you do a major disservice to all us players/subscribers who sit down and play and enjoy the game directly. I am all for this, and more lawsuits to transpire on gold farmers/sellers, and other exploiters if they dare make a profit off the back of the hardwork of developers. blizzard has done a stellar job of this game, and they deserve the money they make, who are you to say they make too much money? i know id love to have 10 million people playing my game lol.
    
    I dont have to worry about recieiving a lawsuit from blizzard or any company cause i dont gold sell/farm, or use exploitive 3rd party software lol. so what do i have to bitch about? nothing, ill just be playing my game the old fashioned way,....with a mouse and keyboard and my brain. have a good day sir.

    ---

    Nope. I have no problem with companies going after third-party software producers on valid grounds. Using Glider definitely violates the EULA/TOS. Writing Glider probably violated the EULA/TOS directly and was probably also illegal on grounds that it was written for profit and was designed solely to violate the EULA/TOS.

    If Blizzard wanted to go after MDY solely on EULA/TOS and/or DMCA (it is the law even if a bad law), that's great.

    However, claiming a copy in RAM is a Copyright violation is ludicrous. A silly example of why this ruling is wrong and dangerous is it would allow a company to claim that making a copy of the software in RAM (in order to run the program as intended) is a Copyright violation and you must pay for that right (if they use some pathetic "encryption" in RAM, it would be illegal under DMCA to circumvent this). This claim would probably be thrown out because you purchased the software and it could not function at all without being in RAM but it would be a valid Copyright claim based on this ruling.

  • Posted: 10/07/08 3:55 PM
    General Discussion