From: Chris Home (clarson52@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 05:42:06 GMT-3
By reading any further then this sentence you agree not to hold me to my
promise of making this my last post on the subject. wink wink
I am not trying to defend any individual or tryinng to knock IPExpert. I am
sure there was good reason for kicking this person or at least would hope
so. My real issue is with the practice of licensing, and IPExperts license
is a perfect example of why.
I know many people praise IPExpert material and I have seen their workbooks
even though apparently I was not licensed to. I think it is great that we
have companies that are producing lab study material. Yes I understand the
conflict between the ability to make a profit and continue to enjoy these
services or not having them due to piracy or what not. However, as a
consumer I am also concerned with my time and MY pocketbook and where this
has the potential to lead.
>
> I haven't seen the IPexpert contract, so I don't know who retains
> ownership of the materials. That would be a critical issue, and
> copyright has nothing to do with it -- right-to-use licensing is
> contractual, not copyright law.
That was exactly my point Howard. Copyright has nothing to do with it. It is
contractual. Without any real means of tracking violators what purpose does
it really serve. Why is a copyright preventing copying, reprinting and
redistribution not sufficient anymore? What happens when most if not all
media is delivered elctronically? Will it be a violation to loan a book to a
friend? Like the police using cameras and delivering tickets by mail will I
receive a notice of fine or a bill for royalties by mail for giving a book
to a friend without knowing it was a violation of a EULA (because everything
has a EULA now and I am tired of reading them?)
>
> Personally, I might agree that use with a specific study partner
> could be reasonable, especially if it were disclosed the way you
> specify a secondary driver on a car rental. But I have neither seen
> the specific license agreement in question, nor am I privy to Wayne's
> business model. A license is a contract that can override copyright
> provisions.
>
It appears that the license would prevent you from sharing it with a
partner. https://www.ipexpert.net/shoppingcart/checkout/agreement.asp It
does state that the material is not transferable and is useable only by the
purchasor. THIS IS IMPORTANT!! Because......
It is not just IPExpert here. Think forward a little bit and think globally.
When most media is delivered electronically doesn't the ability to license
everything concern you? Will I have to disclose my family members who might
log in and read the newspaper I am delivered and signed a EULA for? When my
wifes user authenticity certificate was found to have accessed the Time
magazine that was ordered, delivered and licensed to me electronically, will
I receive a bill for a second subscription? Am I going to have to enter
into a contractual obligation for any items I might receive over the wire?
T.V., newspaper, radio stations etc? I agree some form of protection is
necessary, but licensing is complicated and there will come a time when this
will be commonplace. There should be plenty of forethought, discussion,
banter and maybe dissention before we say "this is o.k. in my book".
Copyrighting can protect against reprinting, copying and distribution so
what purpose does the license serve except to set business up to begin going
down this road?
>
> I'm confused. Download for free? Certainly, the principles underlying
> the labs can come free from Cisco, the RFCs, etc. The labs, so far
> as I know, are not downloadable except to licensed users with a
> specific update or service agreement. With minor variations, this is
> true for all study guide vendors with which I am familiar.
>
By free I meant pirated and not to hard to find a free electronic copy.
Anyway, just food for thought. I am not concerned with this individual, I am
concerned about things like the digital protection act or whatever it is
called now, the fact that the government ever even proposed a V-chip. Next
it will be the media tracking chip and the "oops, we screwed the consumer
chip" (oh well we all profit anyway because we are lawmakers and saw it
coming. 2 bad for you but we got our palms greased good so...). Aren't there
a ton of companies trying to forward standards that won't allow you to play
music or DVD's if they do not contain some code or smart chip? Does that
mean I will have to purchase a replacement disc due to a scratch because I
can no longer make a backup copy of any of my media? Granted it is already
being tried but currently consumer copy protections schemes fail or
workarounds.
Business is working hard to mature these schemes as well as electronic media
delivery and tracking. What does that mean for the consumer? I do not think
the majority of individuals look too far ahead in these matters while
business is feverish in it's pursuit hence we now have licensing of printed
material. We could wake up to find we got the short end of the stick because
we were too busy sticking up for the rights of business and not thinking
enough about what it meant as a whole.
Maybe a little extreme for today but definitely probable scenarios if we
don't keep a watchfull eye.
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:41 GMT-3