Pages: [1] 2   Bas de page
«Imprimer»
Auteur Fil de discussion: Software Licensing  (Lu 494 fois)
Sean Hunt
Meeting Chairman
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Waterloo
Messages: 216
Karma: 6


« le: 18 juin 2010, 01:50:49 »
0

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I would appreciate any corrections from lawyers, as finding case law in this area is difficult, especially in Canada.

Software licensing isn't a big-name political issue, but I think that consumers suffer from a lack of a well-defined legal framework regarding software licenses.

Software licenses are contracts that are probably legally much in the same vein as ticket waivers - they're nonnegotiable contracts that sometimes stipulate very unreasonable and not-legally-enforceable terms and are required to use a good or service (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_cases for an unfortunately short explanation). Common to both of them is clauses that just fall short of signing away your firstborn child - I believe I once visited a ski resort that claimed that if I skied on their hill, I was giving up my right to sue any of their employees ever for any reason whatsoever.

The trick with software licenses is that they often rely on your inability to legally copy the software in question to your computer without infringing copyright. Without that, there is no consideration for the contract (most if not all of these agreements are agreed to post-purchase). There is very little regulation or case precedent over licenses, and yet they underpin the software industry.

With that in mind, it's important to consider what our stance on software licenses should be. If C-32 gets an exception added to the TPM section making circumvention legal for private copying, it could render many software licenses useless (note: it probably wouldn't affect previous agreements, only new ones) in the narrow sense of the private copying exception. This only serves to add to the mess that is software licensing.

I personally believe that a separate section of (copyright) law should deal specifically with what is now software licensing to remove this madness. The actual licensing would ideally be removed and replaced with statutory rights. The general point of software licensing is a 1-purchase 1-use-at-a-time rule; you can't buy a single copy and run 300 computers with it simultaneously. Beyond that, things can get absurd pretty quickly, such as with clauses that limit how many connections can be made to a piece of software (an actual clause in some Windows license agreements).

The rules on software distributed through Valve's Steam system is an excellent example of what I personally think that software licensing rules should strive for: if you buy one copy, you may use it whenever you want, however you want, and you can copy it however you want, but you can't run it in two different places at once. This is what the physical world gives you. If you get a car, you're free to do what you want, but if you want to drive two cars at once, you need to buy another one.
Nuitari
Director-at-Large
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 250
Karma: 15


« Répondre #1 le: 18 juin 2010, 03:09:15 »
0

We don't have a particular stance on software licensing, but our copyright platform will have many effects on it.

First and foremost, we wouldn't give any special legal protection to any DRM/TPM scheme.
Users will legally be able to share the software for non-commercial uses, and to privately copy it for whatever purpose.

One of the other big issues I personally have about software licenses, is that they try to inhibit a customer's legal rights. This needs to be addressed in customer protection legislation, which tend to be at a provincial level in Canada. Licenses need to be made very clear and to the point. The legalese itself probably won't hold up in any court.

Steam is overall nice for the whole gaming industry, but there is always the risk that they pull content that you already purchased. This practice should be made illegal in the customer protection laws of each provinces.
phro
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 34
Karma: 1


« Répondre #2 le: 30 juin 2010, 11:44:37 »
0

This is more along the lines of something a consumer interest group might take up, but maybe the creation of some sort of advanced version of the movie ratings system could be help?  Something that could quickly and easily illustrate the basics of the EULA contents to consumers who would just click through the wrapping anyway.  Like a set of icons that denote things like "contains DRM", "restricted copying", "you're about to agree to personal information sharing with trusted partners", etc.

If it's harder for companies to hide behind reams and reams of legalease consumers may find themselves able to put pressure on software vendors by putting their purchasing power behind a less inhibitive vendor.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #3 le: 2 juillet 2010, 12:08:33 »
0

My personal view on this...

1) EULA's and similar should be done in non-legalese format. The people who are being 'bound' by these 'contracts' are not wealthy individuals with a team of lawyers on call for the most part. If they want them to be legally enforcible they should make the vendors get people to sign the contract before the purchase is completed.

2) If something includes DRM I would say that packaging should contain at least 10% of the FRONT of the packaging dedicated to the information about the DRM included. Sorta like cigarette packages carry all those warnings. By making the packaging less attractive you also help the consumer look at things more critically as they are not as swayed by pimped out boxes.

3) DRM should have no protection under law.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #4 le: 2 juillet 2010, 12:57:52 »
0

1) It can be done much more simply. If it doesn't have a signature, it isn't legally binding. No more EULA. Done and done. They can make the user click all the buttons they want, but it won't have any effect on their legal position.

2) Then you have to define DRM.

3) Naturally.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #5 le: 2 juillet 2010, 08:10:46 »
0

2) Then you have to define DRM.

Anything which enforces restrictions on the end user. Including but not limited to restrictions on copying for backup use,  limitation on fair use/fair dealing, inability to skip these stupid FBI/Interpol warnings, etc...

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #6 le: 2 juillet 2010, 01:15:26 »
0

So does that mean we need to include a warning saying, "This film comes on a DVD and will not play in your CD player"? There will always be restrictions, no matter how intentional or unintentional.
phro
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 34
Karma: 1


« Répondre #7 le: 2 juillet 2010, 02:13:17 »
0

@Mikkel, no to two things. I specifically said it should be someone other than "we", and I don't mean labels to brace against stupidity.  I'm talking about a way of distilling or reducing common EULA clauses into simple icons the average user can grasp the significance of.  Something similar to this or this.

Also, I am not saying this is a great idea.  It's just the first idea I had when reading the OP.
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #8 le: 2 juillet 2010, 02:43:34 »
0

@Mikkel, no to two things. I specifically said it should be someone other than "we", and I don't mean labels to brace against stupidity.

Sure, but you have to draw a line to distinguish DRM from simple technical limitations. You can bet the manufacturers/publishers/developers will find plenty of ways to push that boundary as far as possible.

I'm talking about a way of distilling or reducing common EULA clauses into simple icons the average user can grasp the significance of.  Something similar to this or this.

I understand that. If the EULA has no legal effect, there will be no EULA. No need to overcomplicate things.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #9 le: 2 juillet 2010, 02:55:03 »
0

Easy way to distinguish between DRM and Technical Limitations...

Technical ones are hardware based format differences (IE. CD vs DVD vs Blu Ray. They use optical laser disc technologies but each generation is backwards compatible with previous ones because they are just using a different frequency of laser which makes it possible to pack data more densely. Basically if you could buy a new piece of hardware and have it do it then it's a technical one.

DRM ones are hardware and/or software designed to proactively restrict freedoms of the customer. So CSS (Content Scrambling System) is a DRMed format designed to prevent people from making backup copies and/or exercising their fair use rights however weak CSS may be.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #10 le: 2 juillet 2010, 02:55:48 »
0

So we go back to proprietary interfaces. That's not DRM, right?
phro
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 34
Karma: 1


« Répondre #11 le: 2 juillet 2010, 02:56:00 »
0

With regard to drawing a line, perhaps if C-62 should pass in its current form then such a DRM icon could be applied only to products which claim protection under that law.

I will take your second point at face value, and assume that in so saying you agree that there is no legislative need for such a system to exist.  As a consumer of retail software though I could certainly see the value in a EULA rating system not from a legal standpoint but from a consumer rights / awareness standpoint.  

Maybe we're straying from the OP's original purpose?  Sean are we making any sense here or have we strayed from your point?
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #12 le: 2 juillet 2010, 02:58:59 »
0

With regard to drawing a line, perhaps if C-62 should pass in its current form then such a DRM icon could be applied only to products which claim protection under that law.

That's C-32.

I will take your second point at face value, and assume that in so saying you agree that there is no legislative need for such a system to exist.  As a consumer of retail software though I could certainly see the value in a EULA rating system not from a legal standpoint but from a consumer rights / awareness standpoint. 

EULA is not, and has never been, a rating system. It's a faux license agreement trying to absolve the publisher of any responsibility for anything while restricting the user's activities as much as possible. It serves no purpose whatsoever to the end user.
phro
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 34
Karma: 1


« Répondre #13 le: 2 juillet 2010, 03:02:02 »
0

C-something something Smiley

Sorry I'm not being clear, the set of icons I'm talking about someone creating could be used as a system to RATE EULA's, not the other way around.
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #14 le: 2 juillet 2010, 03:02:48 »
0

I still don't understand why you think they're needed... Undecided
Pages: [1] 2   Haut de page
«Imprimer»
 
Aller à: