3 ms·

This is a concern: > In its lawsuit, Axel Springer cited a 2012 court ruling which found that software for Sony’s Playstation Portable console that changed cod

This is a concern: > In its lawsuit, Axel Springer cited a 2012 court ruling which found that software for Sony’s Playstation Portable console that changed code in memory to facilitate cheating was infringing. In that case the court found that the temporary modification of the software constituted a revision of the software, something which requires permission from rightsholders. How can it be against copyright the modify my personal copy of a game? If I cut out the all of the faces of an actor on a VHS tape and replace it with mine, is that copyright infringement? It's my copy.

kazinator 5y ago
The principle that shrinkwrap licenses are based on is that you're entering into a contract by agreeing. Part of that contract is a grant to you: that you're permitted to have a copy of the work. Then there are various arbitrary clauses to restrict your behavior with respect to that copy. If you break those clauses the agreement is null and void. All of it, including the part that grants you permission to have the copy. So that is then what you're violating: since you're doing things the game vendor does not like, you're no longer an authorized user, and so you have retroactively violated copyright by having a copy of the game. The contract idea is sound, but it the legitimacy of those restrictions and the bundling of the behavioral clauses with copyright should only be deemed to be valid if a paper document was signed: either with all parties present, or else notarized. These kinds of restrictions should not be held valid if they are imposed against users who can download the game without signing any actual agreement. At best, a copyright-based license agreement attached to something that is downloadable by the general public should only be able to impose copyright-based restrictions, like whether redistribution is permitted and in what forms.

kazinator 5y ago

The principle that shrinkwrap licenses are based on is that you're entering into a contract by agreeing. Part of that contract is a grant to you: that you're permitted to have a copy of the work. Then there are various arbitrary clauses to restrict your behavior with respect to that copy. If you break those clauses the agreement is null and void. All of it, including the part that grants you permission to have the copy. So that is then what you're violating: since you're doing things the game vendor does not like, you're no longer an authorized user, and so you have retroactively violated copyright by having a copy of the game. The contract idea is sound, but it the legitimacy of those restrictions and the bundling of the behavioral clauses with copyright should only be deemed to be valid if a paper document was signed: either with all parties present, or else notarized. These kinds of restrictions should not be held valid if they are imposed against users who can download the game without signing any actual agreement. At best, a copyright-based license agreement attached to something that is downloadable by the general public should only be able to impose copyright-based restrictions, like whether redistribution is permitted and in what forms.