GET Copyright against gunpowder and crossbow / Sudo Null IT News FREE

I often write out about historical parallels. Because, in my persuasion, everything is interconnected: said "A", and you have already been called "B"; whispered softly "ZYCH", and in response a loud "YAT" was already heard. Right of first publication in this sense is the fecund priming coat for analysis.

Take, for deterrent example, unmatchable of the most common items on the banner of standard license agreements - the prohibition of transferring the property to a third gear party. If you make never read the agreements (I have to read them by profession), then I will say that this lieu is just about the most important consequence of your click along "I have read and accept."

Modern copyright is based on the fact that having bought a disc without the consent of the author, the user cannot imitate it, set a public show; The downloaded online program cannot be transferred to a friend. In Article 25 of the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" this is called "procreation at home for personal purposes Oregon upper balcony". In that location are a great deal of justifications for this prohibition in legal and legal assistant literature, and thus I wish not quote them. I suggest looking at back at chronicle.

History No. 1

In the XI centred, during the Crusades in Espana, Western Europeans showtime encountered the combat use of fuel mixtures supported nitrate in battles with the Moors. It was gunpowder. At the rootage of the XIII century, France began lic connected the creation of technologies for the production and use of powder, but soon all of this research was banned past the church, which called gunpowder a "mephistophelean potion." The cognition of his secret became a sufficient basis for electrocution at the stake. In 1305, near Ronda, the Arabs used the first firearms against the Spaniards - the "mods" who fired lead kernels the size of a walnut tree. The guns were forged welded iron out pipes attached to a wooden deck. The spick-and-span weapons showed much combat effectiveness that they made Europeans quickly forget the ban on the church. And three long time later, during the siege of Rock of Gibraltar,

History No. 2

1139 year. Europe is mired in wars. The dawn of chivalry. Civil strife is liberally interspersed with churchlike conflicts. Pope Innocent II unfit the use of a crossbow. Fearing anathema, helium acute out that crossbows are venomous, hateful to God and bad for war between Christians. Views happening the specific wording of the BAN vary. Other sources indicate that Latera Cathedral prohibited some the crossbow and the fine art of archery from organism used by Christians against Christians. Merely not the point. The reason was simple - a crossbow (and an English bow) allowed a commoner to kill a knight. All this aristocratic, clad in the cloak of murder could Be hit past one arrow of the peasant. This completely desecrated the established picture of the world and the foundations of social club. It turns knocked out that like a sho birth in the right tower of the castle, branch of knowledge training, a horse and expensive armor manage non guarantee you force complete any shoemaker. The forbidding was severe, and even the next variant of the pope - Sinless IIІ re-confirmed it.
This ban led to an interesting answer - everyone who was in nobelium hurry to stick to the advice of the pontiff (and often it was the townsfolk) began to feed a worthy rebuff to the chief of state troops, who relied along chivalrous power and valiancy. This greatly accelerated the acquisition of autonomy by cities and the development of modern democracy. The crossbow was also widespread in Eastern Europe, allowing to restrain the dominance of given powers. A crossbow, for instance, is placed on the coat of arms of one of the districts of Kiev - Podolsky.

What get along these examples from the dense Eye Ages have in common with modern copyright?

And the fact that the ban on private copying and transfer of copyright in modern conditions, when information transfer technologies have reached unprecedented heights, looks like a ban against progress. The motif for the ban is identical - a lack of sympathy of how to handle IT, and how to change your established views. Copyright holders can non learn how to make money on file sharing, preferring to spend efforts on forbidding and blocking sites. Motivated by the impression that the right to withdraw works from free circulation leads to wealth, rightholders in expensive scintillation suits rush to fight buccaneering, and fall into the mud, hit by torrents.

The first gaps in the armor have already appeared.

By a decision of the European Court of Justice of July 3, 2012, the court ruled that the user has the right to resell the software, no matter of whether the software was purchased on a disk drive OR downloaded from the Internet. The tourist court did not accept Oracle's put on regarding these decisions, accordant to which such resale violated the terms of the license agreement regarding the consumption of software. In essence, the generally accepted principle "software is licensed but not available" was upturned by the romance. But the Court acknowledged that the doctrine of exhaustion of the rights of the copyright holder after the first sale of the copy is practical to the downloaded software program.

At the same meter, the court determined some features: the drug user has the right to resell a copy of the software only when he himself has stopped using this program. Oracle noted that it would not be workable to actually control the user in that case. The motor hotel replied that to solve this problem there are individual digital keys for software or their analogues.

It is important that the position of the Court of Charm of the The States is the opposite - he believes that resale of the software violates the terms of the license correspondence regarding the use of the copy (but if it is a hard drive, resale is allowed). This approach in the United States is also confirmed by Microsoft Corp. vs Musical harmony Computers & Elec., Inc. and Adobe Systems, Inc. vs Stargate Software Inc. According to these decisions, in case of transfer of software rights under a license agreement, the licensor's right to sell such software program is not protected past the doctrine of the first sale and, accordingly, is a violation of copyright.

As we can see, unlike gunpowder and crossbow, this conflict is in full lilt. But, if you look carefully, you can see that the copyright holders have to find a agency to usance torrents and free data file communion in their business simulate. There are already many examples. Our posterity will learn about those WHO coiffure not want to do this from history textbooks.

DOWNLOAD HERE

GET Copyright against gunpowder and crossbow / Sudo Null IT News FREE

Posted by: parkerines1949.blogspot.com

Share this post