Space5000 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (91) comment rss

  • On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?

    Space5000 ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2021 @ 04:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully Certain Terms Are Not Legal

    Yeah that's what I meant I mean. Physical copies of software is still physical as it's made up of magnets, like how a painting is made up of some other minerals. Copyright law seems to recognize that it's possible for people to own particular copies of Copyrighted content and such law uses the RAM doctrine for software. An enforceable contract limiting the physical product would then likely effect the "ownership" element of the limitation, but in the end the issue is due to a contract having power over a physical product that was given away after payment, which I wonder can truly be enforceable.

  • On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?

    Space5000 ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2021 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Hopefully Certain Terms Are Not Legal

    If I recall right, Copyright law seems to recognize that you can actually own copies of I think lawful copyrighted software. There already is copyright limitations in countries that allow users to properly copy software in order to run it.

  • On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?

    Space5000 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2021 @ 09:59pm

    Re: What does this have to copyright?

    You might actually be right actually. If this horrible term has no statement in Copyright law, then yeah. I do wonder if contract law can really control physical lawful stuff sold (regardless of "not sold" claim or not) because of so, then that law is going to need to be fixed.

  • On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?

    Space5000 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2021 @ 02:21pm

    Re:

    Though if such clauses are unenforceable, don't they lose the right to sue people over "breach of contract" too, over unenforceable terms? If they can still sue you over such terms, it's kinda as bad.

  • On the post: It's Time To End The Anti-Circumvention Exemption Circus

    Space5000 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2021 @ 02:15pm

    Re: Re: Better I Think, But Why Not Abolish It?

    Oh right I guess I forgot that DMCA isn't just about bypassing copyright protection of physical stuff you own. My bad. Haha

  • On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?

    Space5000 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2021 @ 02:09pm

    Hopefully Certain Terms Are Not Legal

    If I pay for one single payment of a fee for a lawful software (usually when physical), then I deserve to get property rights over it and that every term of a contract trying to control it needs to be held as null and void. I even heard that terms like that just can't be lawful, but of course I am skeptical over that.

    I remember finding this but I don't see much discussion about it outside of it: https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda

  • On the post: It's Time To End The Anti-Circumvention Exemption Circus

    Space5000 ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2021 @ 06:13pm

    Better I Think, But Why Not Abolish It?

    I think that people should be allowed to get around copy protection of lawful works for any lawful purchase as it doesn't make any sense and breaks the balance between Copyright limitations and consumers. If I for example wanted to bypass Copyright protection of a PS3 game in order to run it on an emulator, I should get that right.

    And while I stand with what I said here a lot, why do we even need DMCA after? Copyright piracy is already illegal as Copyright law is still a thing without DMCA, and the same goes for other laws outside of DMCA. So why do we even need DMCA still? Extra punishment is the only thing I can see coming out of it if we still have DMCA after fixing it. I think the purpose of DMCA was to add extra, immoral, restrictions to block a lot of lawful stuff beyond it.

  • On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch

    Space5000 ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2021 @ 05:04pm

    The Problem Is Not Being Able to Buy Nintendo Games

    I don't know if this was mentioned on here or not, but the pirated games not only offer the possibility of superior quality, but it's also possible to preserve the actual games alone. Nintendo doesn't let people actually buy a lot of their old N64 games and only offers it to an indefinite rental system that ends whenever Nintendo pulls the plug to it.

    I honestly hope people don't forget the number one problem here, so I wanted to mention it here. Nintendo even once offered the Super Mario 3D All-Stars, and they gave the middle finger to consumers by no longer offering it even digitally likely showing they hate the idea of consumers actually being able to preserve these games after a one time payment. If Nintendo keeps acting like this, then I will always probably find certain cases of "piracy" that already happened to their games morally justified alone and that Nintendo is solely more responsible for why some people illegally downloaded Nintendo ROMs.

  • On the post: Seuss Estate And ComicMix Copyright Case Settles In The Saddest Possible Way

    Space5000 ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2021 @ 09:34pm

    Infuriating

    I really wish a lot of people would start protesting by calling out how corrupt our Copyrights is today alone. There are lots of people who are like defenders of certain infringing cases, but I would like to see people directly call out how ridiculous Copyright laws have went and actually try to properly change them for the better, if they aren't doing that.

  • On the post: Court Orders Injunction Against RomUniverse To Permanently Shut Down, Destroy Nintendo ROMs

    Space5000 ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2021 @ 03:00pm

    "and throughout the world"

    Is it even possible for the court to enforce that restriction outside of the United States? Part of the document said this:
    "any of the following activities in the United States of America and throughout the world:". Note I had to adjust the quote but it's based off here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.758131/gov.uscourts.cacd.758131.88.0.pdf

    I remember hearing that countries can apply restrictions to outside countries, but I am not sure if this is based off the same thing.

  • On the post: 27 'Right To Repair' Laws Proposed This Year. Giants Like Apple Have Ensured None Have Passed So Far.

    Space5000 ( profile ), 31 May, 2021 @ 10:09pm

    What Free Country?

    It's really ironic that this is a country that is supposed to be way more about basic rights, possibly than many other countries, and yet it ends up being nearly the complete opposite (obviously not completely) with many poor decisions and/or lack of specific decisions. Certain companies taking away a basic specific property right is one of those examples.

    It used to be better too: for example, we didn't ban many flavored beer, we moderated it. Today: We ban most flavored vaping because fear. If today was back then, we would of likely banned the rest of the flavored beer. So fear-based belief that fuels states acting like this so fast, especially on ridiculous fear just shows how much of a dangerous path we failed to stay away.

    Maybe I'm going a bit crazy, but I'm just infuriated how easy it is to lose even a simple right like this due to a simple fear-based argument made by rich companies so fast.

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 11 Jan, 2021 @ 04:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think I intended that "legally protected speech" is speech that isn't breaking the law. I was also saying that censorship is not always equal to the first amendment being violated. Though granted, sometimes it could be debatable. (e.g. Twitter censoring any lawful political speech in favor of particular side).

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 11 Jan, 2021 @ 04:14pm

    Re:

    Then why is it called "censorship" whenever there is usual talks about specific regional version of games blocking specific content then? I don't rely on popular opinion a lot, but from a common perspective and how one of the definitions out there for "censorship" does not specifically say anything that limits the definition of censorship to lawful speech violated, I believe it might be a bit fair to ask this question.

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2021 @ 01:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think I was mainly trying to point out that the argument the person made is a bit dangerous, which can be so dangerously broad. I'm not trying to say that "censorship" is always bad. Just that to say that "it's not censorship" because "it's possible to say it elsewhere" is a bit ridiculous and basically suggests that censorship probably doesn't even exist. Regardless if constitutional rights are violated or not, if I was banned from protesting "Trump is a loser." on the street outside, but not from swinging it around inside my house, then by the one 'logic', I am not being censored just because I can still say it in my house. Yet, I'm restricted from stating it outside and can barely spread the message to other people. Going back to the political opinion debate, I do think it can sometimes be morally debatable outside of current law when it comes to censorship in general regarding one-sided political sides in lawful popular media websites. Hope I'm being more clear here.

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2021 @ 01:35am

    Re: Re:

    For the first paragraph under quote, that's interesting. It's still a bit hazy for me to tell if this is obviously violating the Twitter's rules but I'm not frustrated if the reasoning was against something very likely to be creating a high risk similar to open crowds during a pandemic. For the reaction under the second quote, you're right for the most part (hate speech and maybe a couple of other topics are a bit hazy) on the property thing, other than that, I was mainly trying to say that even if a company can censor a legally protected speech, it would still fit the definition of censorship, which isn't even the same as saying "My rights are violated.". I think there are some video game censorship that are silly and somewhat debatable, but I'm not saying my rights are violated.

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2021 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    lawful political opinion I mean.

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2021 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re:

    When I was stating what censorship was, I was mainly referring to the mere definition of it. A company can legally stop a lot of lawful speech, despite that, it's still censorship if it fits the definition of censorship. Perhaps the reason why I was concerned was because of the main debate of banning people for having a political opinion.

  • On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter

    Space5000 ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2021 @ 12:34am

    Re:

    =Disclaimer, same person, just recently made an account.=
    I'm not accusing Twitter as violating the first amendment as I think the meaning of censorship is a bit more broad. Though I was using "free speech" a lot if I'm remembering correctly but I don't think I was saying that Twitter banning any lawful speech is a violation of the first amendment.

  • On the post: French Court Declares That Steam Gamers Actually Do Own What They Bought

    Space5000 ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2019 @ 05:17am

    Re: Indie Dev Impact

    Physical copies were sold many times back in the day, and many small companies survived. I am aware that digital "transfer", if done right, doesn't degrade copies, but let's look at some points:
    |Not everyone wants to sell their game.
    |There are some people who desire to support the developer.
    |Thousands of people does not want to wait their turn for someone else to finish, "forcing" them to buy from the developer.
    |This is limited to internet, so internet is required. (This is one restriction exclusive to digital resale).
    |Even if someone sells their game, there is a huge chance that the "next person" won't want to get rid of it. Thus, stopping the "trading" path for that particular license. There is nothing wrong with caring about legal small companies. I just think the claim that it would "hurt" them seems very far from reality. Even if it does, it doesn't excuse violating the right to resell, though I don't mind finding a lawful way to solve to problem for legal small companies. If for example, the first sale for transferring isn't as important as the "RAM doctrine", perhaps maybe modding it to a limited time (maybe first year, can't resell) could be acceptable?

  • On the post: EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

    Space5000 ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2019 @ 07:11pm

    Unlimited Use Licence

    Hello, I have been confused by this. I do live in the US, and I am very likely unfamiliar with how software and copyright works in the EU.
    What does an unlimited licence mean? Is it required in order to count for ownership of the software under the ruling?
    Or is it trying to argue as long as legal software is legally being sold without any limited period (basically, if it's just a normal sell, like a video game for 59.99)?

    In the USA, some legal software is sold with a license agreement claiming it's "limited", and doesn't say at all it's unlimited.
    And some software (usually physical video games) doesn't even come with any "license agreement" in the US for what I know.
    If it's similar in the places covered by this ruling, how does that work? Are they all by default a form of unlimited license grant by law or does the actual creator have to actually make an agreement with specific statement?

    If anyone understands way better than me, then that's good.

Next >>