You think this is wild? You should read his “incursion” thread.
1 Like
like, the license is offered for free, not sold.
I have to post a new 1.275b ISK with the new 40m+ insurance.
It’s getting close to 30 days worth without having to buy a new ship.
I should start to license delivery services.
This doesn’t mean what OP thinks it means. It’s basically the European equivalent of First Sale Doctrine. Nothing to see here, move along.
1 Like
I still didn’t read the article.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0128:EN:HTML
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
3 July 2012 ( *1 )
‛Legal protection of computer programs — Marketing of used licences for computer programs downloaded from the internet — Directive 2009/24/EC — Articles 4(2) and 5(1) — Exhaustion of the distribution right — Concept of lawful acquirer’
-so yes, that is the section *1 above.
However, the dates are rather peculiar to my engagement for marriage.
In Case C-128/11,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 3 February 2011, received at the Court on 14 March 2011, in the proceedings
I got engaged on or around April 4, 2011.
And charged on March 6 , 2012.
Something wrong, it’s still in courts, in the top courts in my country, for life and longer.
Judgment was and is 3 July 2012, almost 4 months after I got charged.
3 February 2011, received at the Court on 14 March 2011
2 months before my engagement and 3 weeks before my engagement.
Directive 2009
is 2 years before my engagement
and 1 year before I quit smoking (for 8 years now, after smoking 30 years).
…
The first sale doctrine , codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner.
1854. Copyright Infringement – First Sale Doctrine | USAM …
https://www.justice.gov/.../criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-…
Nothing to bother me about here, move along.
Legal context
International law
3 The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) adopted the WIPO Copyright Treaty (‘the Copyright Treaty’) in Geneva on 20 December 1996. That treaty was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/278/EC of 16 March 2000 (OJ 2000 L 89, p. 6).
4 Article 4 of the Copyright Treaty, ‘Computer programs’, reads as follows:
‘Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.’
5 Article 6 of the Copyright Treaty, ‘Right of distribution’, provides:
‘1. Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.
- Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph 1 applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorisation of the author.’
6 Article 8 of the Copyright Treaty provides:
‘… authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’.
7 In the agreed statements concerning Articles 6 and 7 of the Copyright Treaty, it is declared that:
‘As used in these Articles, the expressions “copies” and “original and copies” being subject to the right of distribution and the right of rental under the said Articles, refer exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects.’
European Union law
Directive 2001/29
8 Recitals 28 and 29 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) state:
‘(28) Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article. The first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community. This right should not be exhausted in respect of the original or of copies thereof sold by the rightholder or with his consent outside the Community. Rental and lending rights for authors have been established in Directive 92/100/EEC. The distribution right provided for in this Directive is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the rental and lending rights contained in Chapter I of that Directive.
…
etc…
an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder
Someone who steal a program is not knowingly purchasing a copy of a copyrighted or registered copyright work from the copyright holder.
In fact, he gets the copy without authorization, and didn’t pay.
Edit:
Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs
[PDF] ### Legal Protection of Software in the European Union / Austria
Aug 19, 2010 - 4 . Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of computer Programs (Codified version, OJ L. 111/16 … Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations („Rome. II“) [Excerpt only] … Art 2 I Computer Directive (see also §10 ACA) … of 23 April 2009
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0024
Directive 2009/24/EC - EUR-Lex - Europa EU
Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version) (Text with EEA … Article 4 Paragraph 2 Preliminary question submitted by 62015CN0166
Trade Marks and Free Trade: A Global Analysis
https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=3319047957
Lazaros G. Grigoriadis - 2014 - Law
from the trademark, developed by the case law of the ECJ.32 The adjectival expression … c) Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs …
Research Handbook on International Law and Cyberspace
https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1782547398
Nicholas Tsagourias, Russell Buchan - 2015 - Law
90 Directive 2001/83/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 … on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use Art … 41 Art 2 (c) . … 92 Directive 2009/24 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs ( Software Directive ) .
etc…
Edit 2:
Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:0022:EN:PDF
Official Journal of the European Union
DIRECTIVES
DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 April 2009
on the legal protection of computer programs
(Codified version)
(Text with EEA relevance)
…
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community and in particular Article 95 thereof,
…
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 251 of the Treaty (2),
…
(3) Computer programs are playing an increasingly
important role in a broad range of industries and
computer program technology can accordingly be
considered as being of fundamental importance for the
Community’s industrial development.
(4) Certain differences in the legal protection of computer
programs offered by the laws of the Member States have
direct and negative effects on the functioning of the
internal market as regards computer programs.
(5) Existing differences having such effects need to be
removed and new ones prevented from arising, while
differences not adversely affecting the functioning of
the internal market to a substantial degree need not be
removed or prevented from arising.
(6) The Community’s legal framework on the protection of
computer programs can accordingly in the first instance
be limited to establishing that Member States should
accord protection to computer programs under
copyright law as literary works and, further, to establishing
who and what should be protected, the
exclusive rights on which protected persons should be
able to rely in order to authorise or prohibit certain acts
and for how long the protection should apply.
(7) For the purpose of this Directive, the term ‘computer
program’ shall include programs in any form, including
those which are incorporated into hardware. This term
also includes preparatory design work leading to the
development of a computer program provided that the
nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer
program can result from it at a later stage.
(8) In respect of the criteria to be applied in determining
whether or not a computer program is an original
work, no tests as to the qualitative or aesthetic merits
of the program should be applied.
…
(10) The function of a computer program is to communicate
and work together with other components of a computer
system and with users and, for this purpose, a logical
and, where appropriate, physical interconnection and
interaction is required to permit all elements of
software and hardware to work with other software
and hardware and with users in all the ways in which
they are intended to function. The parts of the program
which provide for such interconnection and interaction
between elements of software and hardware are generally
known as ‘interfaces’. This functional interconnection and
interaction is generally known as ‘interoperability’; such
interoperability can be defined as the ability to exchange
information and mutually to use the information which
has been exchanged.
(11) For the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that
only the expression of a computer program is protected
and that ideas and principles which underlie any element
of a program, including those which underlie its
interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this
Directive. In accordance with this principle of
copyright, to the extent that logic, algorithms and
programming languages comprise ideas and principles,
those ideas and principles are not protected under this
Directive. In accordance with the legislation and case-law
of the Member States and the international copyright
conventions, the expression of those ideas and principles
is to be protected by copyright.
(12) For the purposes of this Directive, the term ‘rental’ means
the making available for use, for a limited period of time
and for profit-making purposes, of a computer program
or a copy thereof. This term does not include public
lending, which, accordingly, remains outside the scope
of this Directive.
(13) The exclusive rights of the author to prevent the
unauthorised reproduction of his work should be
subject to a limited exception in the case of a
computer program to allow the reproduction technically
necessary for the use of that program by the lawful
acquirer. This means that the acts of loading and
running necessary for the use of a copy of a program
which has been lawfully acquired, and the act of
correction of its errors, may not be prohibited by
contract. In the absence of specific contractual
provisions, including when a copy of the program has
been sold, any other act necessary for the use of the copy
of a program may be performed in accordance with its
intended purpose by a lawful acquirer of that copy.
(14) A person having a right to use a computer program
should not be prevented from performing acts
necessary to observe, study or test the functioning of
the program, provided that those acts do not infringe
the copyright in the program.
(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or
transformation of the form of the code in which a copy
of a computer program has been made available
constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of
the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when
such a reproduction of the code and translation of its
form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information
to achieve the interoperability of an independently
created program with other programs. It has
therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances
only, performance of the acts of reproduction
and translation by or on behalf of a person having a
right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and
compatible with fair practice and must therefore be
deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder.
An objective of this exception is to make it
possible to connect all components of a computer
system, including those of different manufacturers, so
that they can work together. Such an exception to the
author’s exclusive rights may not be used in a way which
prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or
which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the
program.
(16) Protection of computer programs under copyright laws
should be without prejudice to the application, in appropriate
cases, of other forms of protection. However, any
contractual provisions contrary to the provisions of this
Directive laid down in respect of decompilation or to the
exceptions provided for by this Directive with regard to
the making of a back-up copy or to observation, study or
testing of the functioning of a program should be null
and void.
(17) The provisions of this Directive are without prejudice to
the application of the competition rules under Articles
81 and 82 of the Treaty if a dominant supplier refuses to
make information available which is necessary for interoperability
as defined in this Directive.
(18) The provisions of this Directive should be without
prejudice to specific requirements of Community law
already enacted in respect of the publication of interfaces
in the telecommunications sector or Council Decisions
relating to standardisation in the field of information
technology and telecommunication.
L 111/18 - Official Journal of the European Union - 5.5.2009
(19) This Directive does not affect derogations provided for
under national legislation in accordance with the Berne
Convention on points not covered by this Directive.
(20) This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations
of the Member States relating to the time-limits
for transposition into national law of the Directives set
out in Annex I, Part B,
Article 1
Object of protection
- to 4.
Article 2
Authorship of computer programs
Article 3
Beneficiaries of protection
Article 4
Restricted acts
2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program
by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution
right within the Community of that copy, with the
exception of the right to control further rental of the
program or a copy thereof.
Article 5
Exceptions to the restricted acts
- In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts
referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require
authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for
the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in
accordance with its intended purpose, including for error
correction.
Edit 3:
Exhaustion
Home > Copyright > Computer programs Directive > Exhaustion
Article 4.2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the
exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.
https://preview.tinyurl.com/ydyd3pb9
EU court rules that back-up copies cannot be resold
Kluwer Copyright Blog
October 20, 2016
https://preview.tinyurl.com/yc2cgs32
gn
So much this. Exhaustion of rights of copyright holders work more or less the same way in all developed countries. Nothing to see here indeed.
On the other hand recently -20th April 2018 - Valve lost against Australias Consumer Rights Association because they did not offer any refunds and exluded any guarantee.
“This important precedent confirms the ACCC’s view that overseas-based companies selling to Australian consumers must abide by our laws. If customers buy a product online that is faulty, they are entitled to the same right to a repair, replacement or refund as if they’d walked in to a store,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.
1 Like
Veine Miromme. Dont try to understand. 
Which still doesn’t have any implications connected to accounts inside a game and sale of said accounts.
It just says that Valve (in Australia but obviously easy to make a case in other countries with similar laws to Australia based off that case) have to actually take responsibility for delivering the advertised product in working order.
An account is something totally different.
Yeah WTH. This is a completely new level of crazy.
I’m still in courts to protect my rights, including those and others related which the courts try to pass legislation against to try to justify, but somehow is protect by military.
Nothing to see here indeed, move along.
Move along, even if there was something to see here too!
I actually do this for work myself for over 25 years, and I’m also going to law school for it, so that fits right into my line of work, and yes, I do not only try to understand, but I also have to put it in practice.
I have over 25 years of work on the line and a marriage.
Yes, your new level of crazy.
It’s also not good for marriage and would also exhaust that too?
Just because you like to hate me and try to get away with it with incrimination doesn’t mean that I can afford to agree with you.
In fact, I would have to report you if you tried.
Well if you are allowed on one hand to resell the software which is in case of EVE Online free anyway but you cant use it on the other hand without an account - the logical conclusion would be the ability to put on a private server to use it otherwise the whole point is worthless. Its like the manufacturer of a automated car would only allow you to resell the car without the online uplink to him in which case you would need the ability to operate the car manually. Actually a very fair point which separates between the “soft/hardware” and the professional service in form of an account/Uplink.
It works to the extent of the scope of the case, however, due to my work, I will use the opportunity to read other details related.
For instance, since I do have to move to Europe for both getting married and to complete a bachelor’s degree, those new laws will directly affect my work, which started even longer before than it was passed 9 years ago.
Almost 3 times longer in fact.
I don’t have to organize my work to sell it so far, so those clause for the sale of the first copy and how the related rights would be affected if I did not impose limitation as to the rights of their use, will force me to take it into account depending on what I need to protect and how I will have to do so due to the law.
In other words, I would have to offer accounts types services, with some kind of backdoor spying, for which I would be asked to sign some NDA forms.
So, yes, I’m much better to go study law in the international law school for it.
In fact, the case starts with those very same international laws which perfectly fits well with my family name and my ability if ever, despite the new level of crazy delays, if not for longer than life, to get married.
It is indeed military related.
Secondly, EVE Online software already is free.
Anyone can download it for free without an account as an Alpha account.
Sure it was done after 2009, but this is an account type software account, and server/client architecture services.
Also, rest assured that my case is not related to EVE Online related work or any other contract works with other entities, since I decided to do everything on my own.
The only patents related are the hardware and OS patents, in this case here Oracle, which I did not use, except when brought up to the technology from Ryerson University, which used it extensively for their free BBS system and account generation and management systems.
I also did go to a few board meetings to decide on how to spend and get the resources required to keep the system up-to-date due to imminent shutdowns.
We are in other types of conflicts due to military reasons.
It’s also criminal in my case, and I’m in courts for it too, so , you can try to understand, but I don’t suggest that you keep to try to bother and create a common nuisance like the previous 6 years or 35 years.
It would not work.
Also, I’m in courts against those same systems because it has to do with military systems.
And yes, I do have to hold your comments against you since they are aimed at damaging my work.
The rights to sell products, while not violating copyright is enforced by the courts, because the companies suggesting I don’t understand or, that don’t want me to understand, abuse the account systems, and cause damage to other of my work which I did not sell, no do I intend to.
It also interferes against me to make money from my work.
Why do you think that I need a university degree or a law degree for it?
I don’t.
They do need me to have it, which is also illegal.
At least , once I do get, I will be the first one to prove why and how it is illegal.
In fact, I also have to pay private investigators for it, and they too were reticent to accept money for it.
I however managed to get it sorted out, and they finally realized how it was true.
The problem arise from jurisdiction considering attempts to steal other’s work as legal.
It is not legal to try to steal.
I also don’t appreciate when they try to steal my fiancée and hold me liable, and try to get away with it or threaten me with firearms.
To suggest otherwise would make me conspire.
High Court dismisses Valve’s special leave to appeal application
20 April 2018
My leave to appeal cases went through, although , in and with more military systems, which Valve’s employee would not be allowed to bring in to their case if they tried.
It’s some honor which they are not privy to.
Also, don’t blame my fiancée for not liking you for some reason.
They not only try to forfeit rights to protect in my case, but also try to justify with rights to forfeit my work, including incomes, and protection, and are injurious.
Certainly not a good medical system for my family.
It’s my job to get evidence and record it, so to use it, because they try to deceive me that it’s not after the fact, as accessories after the fact, or to hold me responsible of being an accessory after the fact, which I also can’t do, as it’s also criminal.
Also, at that rate, why should I not get a legal and medical degree?
It seems both are working good together.
It would also be more cost-efficient to deal with the criminal insane ongoing activity, and terrorism competition, which saw over 7 trillion being injected in its market.
As for EVE, I do have an EVE Online file on a USB data stick.
I can sell it, and the service to have transferred the data, which is my own work, and not the work of CCP.
The files it contains have rights related to them which I would not infringe.
If there is a problem with the file, I may be held responsible to a certain extent, perhaps negotiable extent, depending on the circumstances and results, and organisms involved.
Nonetheless, the device is worth around $15 +/- $6 transport to $7 + time, around 2 to 3 hours, at most.
There is also storage time.
None of it has anything to do with the rights of others, or the attribution of their rights, despite me having papers from the courts of how those same courts seek to forfeit my right, and falsely claim I endanger their lives, to try to diminish their liability of how they endanger mine and my family with armed conflicts.
Hell, it’s even possibly the same related entities, groups, and association who tried to seek to forfeit my accounts here, more than a couple of times already.
I’m sure CCP has some private if not secret records of that.
Additionally, all those publicly traded companies are private companies.
Public entities in that regard relate to crown corporation.
…misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations
In other words, they are bullshiting the consumer , who pays for their ■■■■■■■■, more than the law allows them to ■■■■■■■■ them.
Or is it not because the law bullshits them?
Also, the protection for the consumer against this kind of ■■■■■■■■ is directly related to the activity in the scope of the case, and nothing outside of the case shall be construed as ■■■■■■■■, or the same ■■■■■■■■.
Give me my 3 million back.
I think there is some misunderstanding of what a License is. CCP grants several Licenses to players just by way of them having an account and using the other services, like buying PLEX and Skins. Those Licenses are formed in LAW, not in contract. And those Licenses are what the EU is talking about when it says they can be traded, transferred and sold.
If companies think that making everything a periodic purchase, like Omega, somehow magically get’s around the ruling then they’re in for a shock. EU Judges are not going to allow companies to merely bypass the rule, which protects consumers, just by making things periodic using contract law. A consumer can not waive their rights in LAW through a contract.
1 Like
No they don’t.
They also don’t allow misleading for services which are not meant to be as good as displayed, or that should not mislead the consumer into paranoia.
In fact, when the same complaining occurs, and the loss of contact with reality occurs, the same business who get fined would suffer even more from loss of market.
You can’t have customer when those customers lost too much and are in labour camps for reform.
It’s also illegal to circumvent security measures.
The reason why account periods are important is that, if an account for a phone company covers 30 days or 31 days, then that license to use the service is for as long as the contract is limited for.
If the service for the account is listed as forever, then, the client can sell products, and possibly services, if done right.
The creator of the original work/ service / products cannot refuse them the right or win a litigation against them as if protected by the law.
If the consumer wishes to grind the structure, he may do so, in fact, hard disk grinder are very good for corporate systems, as it allows them to transfer the data they need for business files and reporting obligation to government.
The hardware medium is garbage and can be used for recycling.
Also, it should be noted that if you want to sell your own personal account data , should you find a buyer, that you can do so at your own risk.
I’m sure it’s not recommended, and facebook is having a field day and ball park about it too!
Also, if those consumers are protected to cause me damage, I better bring it in court or in another court or both.
I was going to read more details about the original case, before reading details about the second case, including where the law starts, and what details and cases / conditions in gets into, but I am busy moving a Nightmare to another incursion focus, with a Leopard inside, after flying there to get it with a Leopard, while in a fleet in another incursion fleet.
So that will be for later.
I will reply or read or save the rest of the communication in this thread at this later time since it would interfere against my schedule and obligation to do so, unless I hire personnel (like a receptionist) to do it for me.
Thank you for not attacking me all the time.
Yes you can sell a software but an account is also a support, uplink, matchmaking system etc, summarized a service.
A funny example from near future : A car manufacturer XY is selling self driving cars. In case of a reselling of the car he will delete the uplink and prevent the start of the engine as it says so in his EULA. However a smart second hand buyer finds a way to disable the block and the self driving system and operates the car manually.
lol, good thing his corporate jet is not landing on the runway on the first shot!
I can see why the birds would want to get in his intake.
Somehow, he had his auto-pilot making a new production for publishing instead of landing it safely back to earth and he made all the money from it.
Police (Russian: полиция, tr. politsiya , IPA: [pɐˈlʲitsɨjə]) is the federal law-enforcement agency in Russia, operating under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It was established in 2011, replacing the Militsiya, the former police service. It is the federal police service of Russia that operates according to the law on police (Закон “о полиции”),[2] as approved by the Federal Assembly, and subsequently signed into law on February 7, 2011 by then President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev.
4 days after the
decision of 3 February 2011, received at the Court on 14 March 2011;
and subsequently signed into law on February 7, 2011
Bad accounting is also misleading in that it does misrepresent client money, and it would require a computer system to monitor the fraudulent charges.
Veine Miromme could be an NSA bot trying to pass as human :)).
Codename “Clifford”, it’s been developed by Avon Hertz. 