Comments for Lex Technologiae

Comment on The iBooks Author EULA does not create an exclusive license, and doesn’t steal your copyright by Stuart Brooks

Stuart Brooks — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:33:31 +0000

Very clear and informative. Touches upon my comment in previous post. “Work” constitutes what the iBooks creator outputs, not the content of the book. This considered, by enabling the distribution of the ‘work’ for free on any platform, the EULA is in fact less restrictive than most traditional publishers would ever be!

Comment on The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean? by The iBooks Author EULA does not create an exclusive license, and doesn’t steal your copyright – Lex Technologiae

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:28:47 +0000

[...] is a follow up to my previous post on the iBooks Author End User License Agreement (EULA) and what it actually means. Rather than posting an update to that post, I decided to follow it up with a simple breakdown of [...]

Comment on Why Bitcoin isn’t a security under federal securities law by John William Nelson

John William Nelson — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:52:05 +0000

How the US can regulate bitcoin brokers depends on whether bitcoins are securities. If they are, then the US can regulate under the Securities Act. If not, they must have another avenue to regulate.

I look forward to reading your analysis of bitcoin as a security. I don’t see it, but I am certainly willing to look at it again.

Comment on Why Bitcoin isn’t a security under federal securities law by Tom Johnson

Tom Johnson — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:42:00 +0000

Bitcoin is a security in my opinion, however, I have chosen to attack the lower handing fruit frist, whether the US can regulate bitcoin brokers. I will address whether bitcoin is security in my next post. I welcome your feedback.

http://blog.bitcointitan.com/post/16271054719/can-the-us-regulate-bitcoin-brokers

Comment on The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean? by John William Nelson

John William Nelson — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:29:07 +0000

You're correct. The problem is that "Work" is a special term when used in a copyright context. The writer of the EULA should have used a different term because of the confusion this causes. (People, when they see "work" in a copyright context, tend to fall back to the Copyright Act's definition of work, which is quite different than the definition in the EULA. See U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, Chapter 1.) More to the point, why would you want to distribute it in another way? The outputted file can only be used on Apple devices. Frankly, it is probably cheaper to distribute it through Apple's store than to roll your own e-distribution method.

Comment on The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean? by Stuart Brooks

Stuart Brooks — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:28:40 +0000

^ *is subject to the restrictions aforementioned

Comment on The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean? by Stuart Brooks

Stuart Brooks — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:15:51 +0000

It seems this is all a hoohar over a misunderstanding of a definition in the EULA: “Work.”

Work is defined in the EULA as: ‘any book or other work you generate using this software’ (ie: your content AS IT IS PRESENTED IN THE IBOOK FORMAT) to the restrictions aforementioned.

Apple isn’t saying that the content can’t be made into another sort of book or work using another program. It is just safeguarding the effort it has put into creating a free tool, because otherwise people would use it to create superior products which they could then cheaply convert for other devices. That’s just good business practice. It’s not evil.
It is the same as a local restaurant giving you access to use its kitchens for free with the provisio that you (a) bring your own ingredients and (b) don’t sell the food you make anywhere else. If you choose to subsequently take your ingredients elsewhere and make a similar dish, you can still sell it.

Comment on Why Apple’s new iTunes Match service cannot be used to chase down music pirates by John William Nelson

John William Nelson — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:22:58 +0000

You seem to have a strong skepticism of corporations and IP law.

I disagree that the iTunes Match service is a fishing tool. It is a tool to try and convert more people into paying Apple customers.

I will say, however, that it is important to always safeguard our freedoms and ensure that corporate lobbyists don’t try and take them away.

Comment on Why Apple’s new iTunes Match service cannot be used to chase down music pirates by Comeau

Comeau — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:07:28 +0000

This article shows how naive some people still are or are in denial.

this is a fishing tool to see if busting copyright thieves is worth while

best data gathering tool ever and they make you pay for it

subpoena for apples data? hell music execs probably have a nifty ipad app for real time data viewing pleasure

and that is not conspiracy theory that is just how the world works

do you think you have the same rights as a company with more money then god? no you don’t.

infact your correct at the moment it would be hard to prosecute infringers based on apples data alone. But if they see it as worthwhile by analysing the data then for sure they will be going after grandpa or some random 12 year old to scare the public into buying music. They would lobby to make it easier to do so

Comment on The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean? by John William Nelson

John William Nelson — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:45:55 +0000

Some of the gardens do allow it, but point taken.