1  2  3  |   Order by index

Dec 29, 2001, 11:50pm

[View Quote] American laws apply to everyone and everything *in* America. Period.


>That's why if you copyright things, it's illegal to make a copy all over the world, because it has to follow International laws. *copying is only a small thing which >copyrights cover* But since this is copyright in America and Internationally.. you also have to follow America's laws while using this product. So if you break an >American law while using this.. you're running a risk of prosecution. Same goes with other products such as ISP's.

I think you're grossly misinformed about what a copyright is and does. According to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html, copyright holders in the United States (and I would assume internationally because of that treaty... don't remember the name) have the following rights:
1. To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
2. To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
5. To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work;
6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

A copyright is granted on " 'original works of authorship' that are fixed in a tangible form of expression".

Copyright covers only essentially copying and distribution. Copyright doesn't make it illegal for me to break American laws.


> The person whom was offended has every right to prosecute you if they're in America..

They can try to sue, I suppose... But how will they force me to appear in court?

> Just because a company puts things in it's EULA doesn't mean it's legal.. I've come across it before, but AW doesn't violate American laws.

Yes, it does. Anything reasonable in an EULA is legally binding. EULAs are just as good as a paper contract now. I have heard of portions being struck down because they were a little bit "much", but otherwise everything in it is "legal".


-Agent1

Dec 30, 2001, 12:16am

May I see your Masters in law? You're only proving what's true with
Canada's products.

EULA's can only be legal if they're under accordance to the laws of the
company to which the product that you're using is copyrighted. If you agree
to the EULA of a company in America.. you've just agreed to follow those
rules and America's laws in accordance to that product.. anything illegal
you do with that product that's illegal in the country of the company, is
punishable. That may not be the case with Canada's laws but it's true here.
Since you're not from America, you can't specualte which laws you will
follow while using this product.

>They can try to sue, I suppose... But how will they force me to appear in
court?

You can be dragged from your country as easily as you can be hunted down by
the FBI or CIA for that matter. Just because you're in Canada doesn't mean
you can break the laws of America while using American products or services.

>Yes, it does. Anything reasonable in an EULA is legally binding. EULAs are
just as good as a paper contract now. I have heard of portions being struck
down because they were a little bit "much", but otherwise everything in it
is "legal".
>

It's legal if you're writing it in accordance with American law *since it
still is an american product* You can't just write something that violates
laws such as "I give you the legal right to hold stolen funds in this
account, we can't be held responsable neither can you." That's just an
example.. I can't emphasize this enough. If it violates the laws of the
country to which the company belongs, it's illegal. This entire debate is
about American law, nothing else since AW is not a foreign company. I don't
care if you're from Timbukto.. if you do not act in accordance to American
law, you can be prosecuted to the full degree that the law allows. A EULA
does not have the power to surpass laws. This topic has strayed to far away
from the original topic.. :), if you don't mind I'd like to stop it now..
it's too long LoL.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 12:26am

I wish someone would clear this up for me and the rest of us, because this
whole issue of what's legal or not has always been a constant debate here.
I've always thought that what's "illegal" depends on the person in which
whom you are commiting an act against. Ergo, if you use an American gun in
Canada and you're Canadian and shoot an American tourist, he/she could
prosecute you or the American gun company in American court. However, if you
shoot a Canadian, you're safe from American laws, at least. No, the moral is
not to shoot our lovely neighboring Canadians, but it'd be a nice
experiment. Anyone a political science/law major by any chance? I doubt this
is really cut and dry, but it'd be nice. Does it depend on the prosecuter,
the defendent, or the company's jurisdiction? Quite a quibble.

Nornny

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 12:30am

It depends on the product or service used.. and who was wronged in the
process.. that's how you can be prosecuted, also if you break any laws in
your own country. You were exactly right.. maybe I didn't put it in clear
enough words and that's why no one understood me? So if you use the
American gun and shoot an American tourist.. you can be prosecuted not only
by American laws but those you violated in your own country :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 12:58am

Well if you killed the Canadian in the province of quebec with an american
gun that didn't have all the text on the gun in english and french, with
the french a certain percent bigger, then you'd be in even bigger trouble
than murder, you'd be committing a language crime. And in quebec it
doens't get more serious than that lol.

Dec 30, 2001, 1:17am

LoL I told you you shouldn't get into that good stuff again, you're sounding
loony Moff. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 2:12am

[View Quote] > AW is a company owned and operated in the US. Thus all laws apply to it and
> everyone whom uses it. And yes, if you're ejecting based on "god damn"
> because it's offensive to you, that is being biased to your religion, not
> respecting that someone else might not believe in Christianity.


That can be reversed. They are assuming that no one else in the room/channel/world finds that kind of language offensive. Thus, being considerate of *all* beliefs and keeping a place non-offensive to everyone is the only viable option. Follow your own advice to follow your own advice :)


> Loose interpretation of the Constitution would provide that if you were to
> resort to derogitory name calling, you are abridging the right of that
> person to be in that area to hear that offensive material. Note I stated
> that I follow a looser intrpretation of the constitution then what is
> stated. My reason for this is that our founding fathers wouldn't have
> anticpated some of the future problems that may have risen.. such as this.


Even your loose interpretation has *nothing* to do with the fifteenth amendment... it does not anyone them *any* rights.

> Not only Atheists.. Jewish people do not believe "god" is their diety..
> Johava is the god, not god. So the equal statement would be "Johava damn."
> The same goes for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, etc al.. The fact
> that someone else would eject on basis that "god" is the only diety is
> strictly inposting your religion on them. Not all Christians find "god
> damn" offensive. Yes, constant use of saying "god damn" would be
> inappropriate.. but one time isn't anything to be especially "moody"
> towards. Mute them if you find it offensive and no one else does.

That does not combat my point. A public place (AW GZ, AWGate and the like) should be kept non-offensive for *everyone*.

> Yes it would, but it also goes the opposite way, you must also take into
> respect that not everyone follows YOUR beliefs. That comes before someone
> else can take in your situation. Which is a paradox :) because in that
> you'd be following what you said first. The.. "follow your own advice"
> cliche comes to mind.


Did you not understand any of my post? I *agreed* with you on that.

> No it wasn't, it was not everyone finds "damn" or "god damn" offensive. And
> if you do, the simple mute feature takes care of that. But Brant brought in
> new points which needed to be pointed out were not in the same context.


Yes, it was one of your *theme* points. Your point was to consider that some people don't have the same views as you do, and here you are saying that *all* people find 'the F word' offensive. That's hypocrytical.

Dec 30, 2001, 2:17am

> Yes, it was one of your *theme* points. Your point was to consider that
some people don't have the same views as you do, and here you are saying
that *all* people find 'the F word' offensive. That's hypocrytical.
>

They find it offensive.. but they'll use it. I find it offensive but I
still use it, it's meant as such a word as to be offensive hence why it's
considered a "cuss" word. Any other representation of it is falsified and
doesn't conform to G rated regulations. It's a sementic argument. Just
because someone uses a word doesn't actually mean they don't find it
offensive :). The good majority how is that? I tend to generalize on the
English language use but I forgot to take in the fact that it's being
blundered. Sorry for the generalization that the "F word" is offensive to
everyone.

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 2:23am

> They find it offensive.. but they'll use it. I find it offensive but I
> still use it, it's meant as such a word as to be offensive hence why it's
> considered a "cuss" word. Any other representation of it is falsified and
> doesn't conform to G rated regulations. It's a sementic argument. Just
> because someone uses a word doesn't actually mean they don't find it
> offensive :). The good majority how is that? I tend to generalize on the
> English language use but I forgot to take in the fact that it's being
> blundered. Sorry for the generalization that the "F word" is offensive to
> everyone.


I see no purpose for cursing in the first place (unless you slam your finger in the car, you are angry beyond control, etc); however, I am not offended when people do so. You are correct that some people would not people offended by words such as 'GD', but many others would. Therefore, I think that any public international place such as AW should be kept non-offensive for everyone and keep a standard rule set for everyone to follow, such as it is.

--
Shred

Dec 30, 2001, 2:38am

> I see no purpose for cursing in the first place (unless you slam your
finger in the car, you are angry beyond control, etc); however, I am not
offended when people do so. You are correct that some people would not
people offended by words such as 'GD', but many others would. Therefore, I
think that any public international place such as AW should be kept
non-offensive for everyone and keep a standard rule set for everyone to
follow, such as it is.
>

Right :) this is what I was getting at originally.. but I got mad at people
contradicting my original point saying that it's offensive to them so it
should not be allowed. Sorry about that. I agree to that but damn itself,
which is what cozmo said, isn't really offensive at all.. but if you do find
it offensive without the god.. sorry but you can mute them. As for the
other words, there's no excuse to say it in a public GZ, or anywhere really
:).

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 2:54am

[View Quote] my name has a gazillion possible variations! *scribbles TonyM all other moff's face*
--
Tony M (fldmshl2013 at hotmail.com)
http://tonyhttp.s5.com

Dec 30, 2001, 3:28am

[View Quote] >
> They can try to sue, I suppose... But how will they force me to appear in court?
>

Well agent, you better look out. Bowen might send the dreaded US Marine Corpses to fetch you back for that $100 law suit.

Dec 30, 2001, 3:29am

Bowen buy a clue.

[View Quote] > May I see your Masters in law? You're only proving what's true with
> Canada's products.
>
> EULA's can only be legal if they're under accordance to the laws of the
> company to which the product that you're using is copyrighted. If you agree
> to the EULA of a company in America.. you've just agreed to follow those
> rules and America's laws in accordance to that product.. anything illegal
> you do with that product that's illegal in the country of the company, is
> punishable. That may not be the case with Canada's laws but it's true here.
> Since you're not from America, you can't specualte which laws you will
> follow while using this product.
>
> court?
>
> You can be dragged from your country as easily as you can be hunted down by
> the FBI or CIA for that matter. Just because you're in Canada doesn't mean
> you can break the laws of America while using American products or services.
>
> just as good as a paper contract now. I have heard of portions being struck
> down because they were a little bit "much", but otherwise everything in it
> is "legal".
>
> It's legal if you're writing it in accordance with American law *since it
> still is an american product* You can't just write something that violates
> laws such as "I give you the legal right to hold stolen funds in this
> account, we can't be held responsable neither can you." That's just an
> example.. I can't emphasize this enough. If it violates the laws of the
> country to which the company belongs, it's illegal. This entire debate is
> about American law, nothing else since AW is not a foreign company. I don't
> care if you're from Timbukto.. if you do not act in accordance to American
> law, you can be prosecuted to the full degree that the law allows. A EULA
> does not have the power to surpass laws. This topic has strayed to far away
> from the original topic.. :), if you don't mind I'd like to stop it now..
> it's too long LoL.
>
> --Bowen--
>
[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 3:35am

I don't find it offensive, please don't answer for everybody unless your going
to consult everybody.

[View Quote] > some people don't have the same views as you do, and here you are saying
> that *all* people find 'the F word' offensive. That's hypocrytical.
>
> They find it offensive.. but they'll use it. I find it offensive but I
> still use it, it's meant as such a word as to be offensive hence why it's
> considered a "cuss" word. Any other representation of it is falsified and
> doesn't conform to G rated regulations. It's a sementic argument. Just
> because someone uses a word doesn't actually mean they don't find it
> offensive :). The good majority how is that? I tend to generalize on the
> English language use but I forgot to take in the fact that it's being
> blundered. Sorry for the generalization that the "F word" is offensive to
> everyone.
>
> --Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 3:36am

> Bowen buy a clue.

Please don't comment unless you know the actual point. You cannot forepass
any laws of the country to which the company registered it's product in..
read one of the branch-off's of this post by nornny. Don't turn this into a
personal attack either.

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 12:34pm

[View Quote] May I see yours?

> EULA's can only be legal if they're under accordance to the laws of the
> company to which the product that you're using is copyrighted.

Copyright is totally separate to contract law.

> If you agree to the EULA of a company in America.. you've just agreed to follow those
> rules and America's laws in accordance to that product..

No. All I've agreed to follow is the terms set out in the EULA.

> anything illegal you do with that product that's illegal in the country of the company, is punishable.

Maybe if I was in America, yes. Another country can't just impose its laws on citizens of other countries.

> That may not be the case with Canada's laws but it's true here. Since you're not from America, you can't specualte which laws you will
> follow while using this product.

American laws never apply to me unless I've signed some sort of contract saying I won't violate them, or unless I visit America.

> You can be dragged from your country as easily as you can be hunted down by the FBI or CIA for that matter. Just because you're in Canada doesn't mean
> you can break the laws of America while using American products or services.

If the 'crime' was that bad, I'm sure it'd be illegal in Canada too.

> It's legal if you're writing it in accordance with American law *since it still is an american product* You can't just write something that violates
> laws such as "I give you the legal right to hold stolen funds in this account, we can't be held responsable neither can you."

Obviously. But EULAs can say things like "You do not own this software, you simply license it from us", etc.

> That's just an example.. I can't emphasize this enough. If it violates the laws of the country to which the company belongs, it's illegal.

Yes, in that country. But if I were to do something illegal (somehow through AW) that was only illegal in America, I doubt I'd be in much trouble.

> This entire debate is about American law, nothing else since AW is not a foreign company.

No. It involves American law, but we're also trying to work out how international politics would affect the whole thing. True, only American laws apply to AWC, but only Canadian laws apply to me.

> I don't care if you're from Timbukto.. if you do not act in accordance to American law, you can be prosecuted to the full degree that the law allows.

I'd like to see them try :)

> A EULA does not have the power to surpass laws.

Who said it did?

> This topic has strayed to far away from the original topic.. :), if you don't mind I'd like to stop it now.. it's too long LoL.

Not when I still find problems with what you've said :)

-Agent1

Dec 30, 2001, 4:21pm

Read Nornny's post, it explains exactly what happens when you use an
American product and violate an American law. If you use AW, think of it as
American territory, you're responsible to follow our laws while you're using
it. You said yourself in an earlier post that EULA's can set anything they
want. I don't need a masters in law when I'm from the US and we're talking
about an American product, you on the other hand do, since you don't know
any of our laws besides what the internet tells you. Copyrights set to
where the product belongs, if the browser is copyright in america, you're
using that american product.

Any country can impose it's laws while you're in it's territory, while using
AW you are in American territory buddy, albeit virtual, it's still American.
If this was a German Universe I would have to follow German laws, as would
you. Not all countries have the same laws. Such as Canada does not have
the same freedoms we Americans do.

If you did something illegal through AW, if it was severe enough you could
get your rear prosecuted. Canada wouldn't have much choice but to turn you
over, credit fraud for example.. repeated offenses can get your thrown in
jail over here.

You're using AWC's browser, you're in American owned territory, American
laws apply to you, plus Canada's.

The problem is you believe you're immune from laws unless it's Canadian..
it's pretty obvious if you're in someone else's territory, you can get
prosecuted by the laws which they must follow as well. Yes, before you say
AW isn't "territory" it is, it's virtual. Think of it as walking the lines
which connect where you are in Canada to the servers in Boston, then back..
you'd have to walk through American land right? Thus it's laws apply to you
as well using the software. This is relative if you're really talking to an
American or not.. but still could happen if you're not and you get caught.

--Bowen--

--Bowen--
[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 5:13pm

I'm in Quebec, I'd better watch out :P

Fox Mc Clouf

"moff piett" <baronjutter at shaw.ca> a écrit dans le message news: 3c2e82d3 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Well if you killed the Canadian in the province of quebec with an american
> gun that didn't have all the text on the gun in english and french, with
> the french a certain percent bigger, then you'd be in even bigger trouble
> than murder, you'd be committing a language crime. And in quebec it
> doens't get more serious than that lol.

Dec 30, 2001, 5:20pm

Bowen, go ahead and try to get the US gov to send it's forces after one of these
dreaded law breakers like you suggested was possible. It ain't gonna happen.
Besides, copyright laws do not cover ANY laws other than those directly relating
to the distribution of products. You keep saying that copyright means American
laws have to be enforced upon users of any American product. Your wrong, so buy
a clue. Just about everyone who has replied to this thread has told you the real
story, and given exact example (one even quoted the laws provision) yet you
persist in your asanine assumptions. Give it up. Your wrong, their right.

[View Quote] >
> Please don't comment unless you know the actual point. You cannot forepass
> any laws of the country to which the company registered it's product in..
> read one of the branch-off's of this post by nornny. Don't turn this into a
> personal attack either.
>
> --Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 5:26pm

Ok, well, here's what I think. We don't know.
I think this area of justice is still nearly unprepared for what we have to face with today's means of communication. The people who
make the laws are grumpy old men that don't change as fast as the world does.
And your constitution is SOO old... (time to change it, is it? :P) do you really think George Washington thought of cases where you
were in another country while being "connected" to another, even though you physically have nothing to do with that other country ?
Even though some laws are being made, there are still many many things possible on the net that they don't cover, so that kind of
things will most of the time be up to the judge to decide who is right, I guess.

Oh, and I don't have a masters and don't know anything about laws, I just think that makes sense ;)

Fox Mc Cloud

Dec 30, 2001, 5:32pm

I am also an American, and I do know the law somewhat. I also have run this past
my G/F, and my mother, both of whom work in the legal industry, my mother for 35
years. Thye both think Bowen is "blowing smoke". Copyright law does not allow
the enforcement of American laws outside of American territory. The worst that
could happen is for the owner of the copyrighted product to deny service to the
offender if they are outside of US territory.
If you are from a nation that is NOT America, and you break a US law while using
AW. The worst you can get in an eject. AW cannot prosecute you in any way.
However if you attempt to illegally distribute AW's products they can attempt to
do so. But only if they can convince the US Federal government that it is a
valid use of Federal resources.
Now before you say you want to see law degrees again. My mother heads the Oregon
Bar Legal Assistants Association, and is quite conversant in the laws as they
effect Nationwide. My G/F is also a Legal Assistant from the San Francisco area,
her specialties are copyright and paent law. I myself have no legal degree (I
studied advertising), however as an advertising agent you have to know copyright
law pretty durn good.
Speak not of what you know nothing about, or you might appear a fool.

[View Quote] > Read Nornny's post, it explains exactly what happens when you use an
> American product and violate an American law. If you use AW, think of it as
> American territory, you're responsible to follow our laws while you're using
> it. You said yourself in an earlier post that EULA's can set anything they
> want. I don't need a masters in law when I'm from the US and we're talking
> about an American product, you on the other hand do, since you don't know
> any of our laws besides what the internet tells you. Copyrights set to
> where the product belongs, if the browser is copyright in america, you're
> using that american product.
>
> Any country can impose it's laws while you're in it's territory, while using
> AW you are in American territory buddy, albeit virtual, it's still American.
> If this was a German Universe I would have to follow German laws, as would
> you. Not all countries have the same laws. Such as Canada does not have
> the same freedoms we Americans do.
>
> If you did something illegal through AW, if it was severe enough you could
> get your rear prosecuted. Canada wouldn't have much choice but to turn you
> over, credit fraud for example.. repeated offenses can get your thrown in
> jail over here.
>
> You're using AWC's browser, you're in American owned territory, American
> laws apply to you, plus Canada's.
>
> The problem is you believe you're immune from laws unless it's Canadian..
> it's pretty obvious if you're in someone else's territory, you can get
> prosecuted by the laws which they must follow as well. Yes, before you say
> AW isn't "territory" it is, it's virtual. Think of it as walking the lines
> which connect where you are in Canada to the servers in Boston, then back..
> you'd have to walk through American land right? Thus it's laws apply to you
> as well using the software. This is relative if you're really talking to an
> American or not.. but still could happen if you're not and you get caught.
>
> --Bowen--
>
> --Bowen--
[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 7:42pm

Heh... My moms friend went to mexico for a while or somethin... She bought
some sunglasses... Thes sunglasses where copyin some other one and where
made almost exact with the exception that these costed 5 bucks... real ones
cost like 50... Then bein copyright enfringement means that mexican people
break american laws.... Call the Feds!!!

--
TrekkerX
Commatron & Athnex
http://www.commatron.com
http://www.athnex.com
[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 8:12pm

things cost different in defferent countries. So if my store bought some
sunglasses from a US company and sold them for less then US stores id be
brekaing laws? pfftt

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 9:09pm

I agree with you here. Someone could say (and not pointing this at anyone):

Go to Hell!

then on the other hand someone could say:

Hell, I was joking. (as with Damn it could "Damn, I was just joking")

--

Thanks,
Ricky Lipe

Degtur Solutions at http://www.degtur.com
Stuff-X at http://www.stuff-x.com


[View Quote]

Dec 31, 2001, 12:16am

LoL :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

1  2  3  |   Order by index