Post AdMs6d4Qik2eChnp2G by mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
(DIR) More posts by mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
(DIR) Post #AdMrNJnHXmGZO5Axou by mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
2023-12-31T11:54:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What's the actual case law on license keys as things that influence functionality (eg, number of active users permitted on a product) rather than controlling access to the product in the first place - is this under copyright law, or does it "just" end up as a contractual issue?
(DIR) Post #AdMraJQoCdCW1mrOgy by deavmi@ieji.de
2023-12-31T11:57:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 contractual surely?
(DIR) Post #AdMrw5ZKQMA7P9EGOm by aaribaud@piaille.fr
2023-12-31T12:00:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 Copyright, at least in Europe, would imply some form of creativity. Purely functional things like license keys would not be protected under copyright IMO (but IANALAIDEPOOSS)
(DIR) Post #AdMs6d4Qik2eChnp2G by mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
2023-12-31T12:01:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
A plain reading of DMCA 1201 doesn't /seem/ like it covers this? If I've legitimately purchased the work and it's allowing me to, say, run 5 applications simultaneously, is generating a license key that lets me run 6 something that contravenes the author's rights under copyright law?
(DIR) Post #AdMsODh5oAcwiGH5d2 by resuna@ohai.social
2023-12-31T12:05:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 I don't think copyright has anything to do with restrictions on use such as the number of users, settings, and so on. That's part of the license that permits you to make a copy.
(DIR) Post #AdMsajoiCZo7obo8Ey by mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
2023-12-31T12:08:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aaribaud I don't think there's any argument that the keys are themselves copyrightable, but (eg) if I sold keys that granted you the ability to download a copy of an xbox game without being authorised to do so by the copyright holder, there'd probably be an infringement there. What seems more interesting is what happens where you've legitimately obtained a copy of the work and generate keys that work around restrictions.
(DIR) Post #AdMtHEvuu2F2U0Rang by realtbecker@mastodon.social
2023-12-31T12:15:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 not a lawyer but I would guess it’s contractual, license agreements are specifically for when you don’t own the work. Property ownership is always a bag of rights but if you had “legitimately purchased the work” you would not need a license and there would be no limits on how many instances you could run.
(DIR) Post #AdMtkT7xCyWqu40n8C by trystimuli@xn--lofll-1sat.is
2023-12-31T12:21:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 I don't know any case law, but my understanding is that technical measures in DCMA 1201 is usually interpreted quite broadly. It seems irrelevant to section 1201 whether you have a license key in the first place, generating your own license key is circumventing a technical measure that effectively controls access to the work, even if you only generated a license key for fewer seats than you have a license for.
(DIR) Post #AdMuI5AUnGq2RREFQO by mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
2023-12-31T12:27:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trystimuli If, say, a device will play to 4 speakers with the default license, and will play to more speakers if you buy an additional license, but will not execute any additional copyrighted material as a consequence of that, and no additional individuals will gain access to the work as a result of that, which of the rights controlled by copyright is being circumvented?
(DIR) Post #AdMui3nUVufHibr7jM by trystimuli@xn--lofll-1sat.is
2023-12-31T12:31:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 The whole thing about the DCMA is that it's not about whether you enabled copyright infringement, but whether the circumvention could be used to do so.
(DIR) Post #AdMv07wlp9ZVnioLgm by aaribaud@piaille.fr
2023-12-31T12:32:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 Hmm. having "legitimately obtained a copy" of a game does not amount to having been granted the right to play it. That's the reason why the Free Software four essential freedoms list distinct *right to use* and *right to copy* -- one does not equal the other.Thus, having legitimately exercized one's right to copy some software does mean one has a right to run that copy. All this depends on the license terms.And then, back to the copyright/contract distinction... [1/2]
(DIR) Post #AdMvDgBhpQdFlIG8ae by tony@toot.hoyle.me.uk
2023-12-31T12:37:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 Is is circumventing a copy protection mechanism.. interesting question.Something for @neil
(DIR) Post #AdN2vgZqRR8LOFTsiu by kendraserra@dair-community.social
2023-12-31T14:03:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 for you, I went on Westlaw on break.So first of all, as I think you know, but just for clarity, 1201 violations do not require contravention of authors rights under copyright law. They can exist even if there is no copyright issue. Courts generally take a broad view of circumvention of access controls, and so yes, I would suspect that the sixth install counts as a 1201 violation. Case law cites in next toot.
(DIR) Post #AdNQp5Cqs1caeI6uwa by fbartho@mastodon.social
2023-12-31T18:31:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mjg59 Intel and IBM definitely sell (not rent) you hardware with extra processors and stuff, that you need to call sales for them to enable (the extra hardware that you bought, and already have installed)So there’s definitely something enforceable somehow or people wouldn’t be paying.