The stupidity is that they always resist new technologies that would end up helping them. They fought VCRs, they'll fight everything else.
By driving this underground they'll just keep it from ever being profitable for them. They can't stop piracy, they'll just end up keeping it from being easy, by trodding on everyone's freedoms. By doing this they'll alienate the casual pirates, the ones who would pay a small user fee for media.
As it is, they remove all potential good will from every potential customer.
It used to be that I'd buy a movie, not caring about the MPAA. Now, I'll take any means I can to hurt the MPAA as much as I can.
They want to promote their own greedy ends at the expense of everyone else in the world who wants to use digital media. Fuck them.
Only the truly stupid piss off everyone who might potentially pay them any money.
Of course, they're all liars and thieves, they'll simply bribe politicians to enact a media tax, payable by everyone, to compensate them for the piracy they claim is robbing them of their profits.
The rich always win, until the poor have had enough and shoot them. Pushing too far is *never* smart.
For a laugh, post all the keys you extract from the disks... Force the MPAA to recall all of them. Then watch the lynch-mob form when nobody can watch the new DVDs on their existing players.
It'd be amusing if the only players that worked were ones that got around the protection.
They don't have to support it, that's the great thing about IPv6, it'll coexist with older IPv4 implementations...
Basically an ISP puts all of its old IPv4 customers behind a NAT box and they're happy. The rest of the net uses the full address range and the poor little IPv4 box talks to them via a translator.
This'll even work for servers, if MS doesn't get on the ball with it, or releases a crippled/broken version, people who want Win2000 for a server (ugh) could simply put it behind an IPv6 NAT computer and the Win2000 box would think it was directly on the network without having to know the details of what the world is like.
Sure, and hacking root on a closed down Linux box is nearly impossible...
Unfortunately you need to turn services on with both OSes, thus increasing the chance that you can break into them.
IMHO, the greatest resource of the security world is thousands of script kiddies... They make sure that any exploit found is so overused that security people can't help but know about it, thus fixing it.
If it wasn't for script kiddies we'd have a smaller number of black-hats but they'd have twenty years of unpatched exploits available and nobody would be able to stop them.
The script-kiddy situation is worse for those on IRC (etc) who attract their attention, but at least with the exploits being made public, banks, the military, ISPs, and other organizations that need robust security can have it, provided they have an administrator that keeps up with their job.
Sure, I mostly agree. If the information you use in your business was a trade secret which was leaked by someone under NDA or something, often you're denied the right to use it, until it's spread so widely that you can't help but to know it.
And yes, in the second example I assumed you were going public. If you let the company buy your silence, it would remain a trade secret.
Can't be, there's nothing creative about taking one set of numbers and encrypting it. You can't copyright something that doesn't entail some creative input.
I support this business model. Free trials are a great way to get people to use a product and maybe later, pay for it.
What I object to are laws that say people have a right to make money on this sort of stuff.
You mention Sony and the PS2... They sell a PS2 at a loss hoping the license fees for games make up for it. A valid business model imho.
But, what about someone who decides they don't like the PS2? Sony is out a bit of money if the person buys the system and gets the default game, plays it once and tosses it in a box, never to buy more PS2 games. Should the law mandate purchase of at least twelve games?
What if I buy a PS2 and play games on it, thus satisfying Sony's business model, but would also like to run Linux on it. Do they have a right to say I can't?
If they're concerned, they should sell the system *and* twelve games, or whatever they need to break even, as a unit, or with a clearly written contract requiring the purchase of these games by a certain date. Unfortunately, few people would be willing to spend the $800 or so that this would cost on a system they may not like, so Sony would sell few units.
Instead, they gamble. If the PS2 is good, the games will rock and people will buy them. If the PS2 sucks, nobody will buy them and they'll lose money.
I would have been willing, had DC asked politely, without threats and lies (yes, provable lies) to makre sure any CueCat software I wrote would *by default* communicate with their servers, if used in a network mode. That is, if the user scanned something and wanted to look it up, the default server would be theirs, changeable to Amazon(etc) only if the user wished. Instead they lie and threaten, telling us any unquthorized use is against the contract (this is fraud on their part) and demand we don't use the product in any way they disagree with. This is where I stop supporting them in any way.
Instead of them having a reasonable business which I would support, and hobby usage as well, they try for 100% of the pie instead of 99.9% and lose my support and the support of almost everyone else.
It's not their business model, it's them. They're lying, threatening, assholes commiting fraud and I'll take any and all actions I can to see them bankrupt in a short a time as I can manage.
Step 1: Flood their service with repetitive and automated scans and created serial numbers.
Step 2: Reveal this to their potential customers, dropping the value of their data to zero.
Maybe the next group of people to try this business model will realize that fraud and lies aren't going to help them, those people I will support.
What might be ammusing is an app that does phone home, based on an ID you choose and a list of barcodes that you choose...
You could choose to use the serial number from your scanner or one made up, and to scan a list of barcodes from your favorite products, or to download a list of such from the net...
Imagine if you and all of your friends started scanning the barcodes for your favorite small bands, thus tweaking the demographics "Hey look bob, thousands of our customers are fans of Band X, they've got as big a following as the Spice Girls (or whatever)."
Then they sell these demographics and companies like the RIAA buy them, and then start promoting bands like Band X more because of their already large following.
Use their own invasive techniques against them. Like a Neilson family taking bribes to watch certain shows.
Even better, you wouldn't have to sign any contract, and you'd be performing this intended use of the site, to look up products by their barcodes, so they'd have no legitimate problem with this.
Then, if they get too uppity, we simply reveal than a huge percentage of their demographics are completely false, driving them out of business when people refuse to pay for incorrect statistics.
1) 12:00 syndrome. (As stated in another message) People are too lazy to change the default, many will use his webpage because they don't know or care about alternatives.
2) By making his webpage better than the competition. Supposedly the company has more barcodes scanned and with product info than other companies like Amazon which have only books/movies/etc. So if you're trying to find information on your VCR, or bottle of Jolt, their service might be superior.
3) Good will. If they help the community and *ask* that we use their service as the default in software made for their scanner, many people will do it.
What reason would the average person (someone not downloading a perl script for their linux box) have to go out of their way and download a stand-alone program to use their barcode scanner when then one that came on a CD with it works just as well?
This applies if, for instance, I, under NDA with the MPAA posted the CSS code and the player keys. As long as they took reasonable steps to stop disemination of this information, they could still claim it was a trade secret.
But if I reverse engineered it, they lose all trade-secret rights (against people who base their code off of the reverse engineering) immediately. They could still continue prosecuting people who had violated the NDA, or did so in the future.
Almost, except for the credit clause in older BSD licenses... Don't they have to give credit, or is this only if they claim they're using the BSD code?
And, mightn't they be liable for fraud by claiming they wrote the code themselves, regardless of the BSD license? I'd be a little pissed if I bought software from a company that they claimed to write for my specific application and I found out they just used free code and called it theirs...
Not so. The DMCA protects, in the way you're thinking of, access controls. If the numbers encoded with a barcode are copyrighted and encrypted content, then the DMCA would say something about software which unencrypted them. But hardware and software which simply displayed to the user the encrypted data as read from the paper would be okay, because they'd still need the approved access control software to view it.
But, because barcode aren't encrypted, the DMCA doesn't apply at all. The UCITA does, if you're in a location that has it, but that's it. And that only applies if you install the software.
True. An unlimited plaintext attack, it'd crack any key they'd use in very little time even with a strong algorithm.
But... they could seal the the unit, like a smartcard, and communicate with it via public-key encryption, then it'd come down to cracking the hardware, not the software.
Actually, even in a lot of cases where the company claims to own the hardware, they don't.
If you ask to buy a cellphone, and the salesman agrees to sell it to you, then you've got a pretty good case against them if they try to say the phone you paid money for isn't yours, just because the service contract says so.
The courts often support the consumer in these issues, where a company says one thing and buries something to the contrary ten pages down in a contract.
If a company says, upfront, that if you sign up for the service, they'll *rent* you the machine, that's different. But I've seen very few salesguys actually get that right, most fall back to buy/sell vocabulary and as representatives of the company, they're *selling* the hardware.
Assuming you're serious (and not just posting for the pun)...
Exactly! You anticipate what you can think of, everyone else does the same. Thus if someone else thinks of it and tries to patent it, there's proof that it's fairly obvious. If they think of it and you didn't, it's evidently not obvious to you or the other posters to the forum. (This doesn't prove it's worthy of a patent, just that nobody else already though it was.)
This is a great idea. They're commiting nearly fraudulent acts (threatening legal action when they know no crime has been committed and no criminal harm has been done.) so we might as well fight back, not just against their current moves, but against the company itself.
If the only thing that have that's worth anything is the data, lets ruin the data. They're not paying us for data and nobody signed a contract guaranteeing accurate data, so let's screw it up royally.
There are many ways...
1) Random IDs, your stuff... Makes it look like tons of people use it once or twice and throw it away after scanning random stuff.
2) Random ID (singular), List of Stuff... Makes it look like tons of people own exactly the same things, usefullness depends on how many people scan the exact same list.
3) Random IDs, Barcodes of favorite products... Makes it appear that thousands of people are scanning the same products. What a way to boost your favorite band's sales figures, etc.
No scanner is needed for this, just an app that will make the appropriate net connection and report a given serial # and UPC code. Then lists of stuff we want to promote (hacker-friendly bands, O'Reilly books, etc) can be passed around for people to boost their sales figures.
Quite right. If they want a contract to stick they need to make it known beforehand. "Sir, if you'd like one of our free barcode scanners and will agree to our agreement, you can have it."
Same goes for EULAs. If you buy something and didn't agree to a contract beforehand, you can use the software in any way you see fit, as if it were a book. The maker has no more power to restrict your actions than a book publisher has to restrict who can read the book, etc.
You may be bound by a license if you use the free software, because you haven't already paid to use it, but if it was bundled with the scanner which was a gift for making a purchase (ie, they gave it to you) then you're safe there too.
Sure. And Ford motor company removed a revenue stream from makers of horse drawn buggies, horse breeders, etc.
That's not illegal, that's just the changing business world.
Can you imagine a company called Shelters and Missions Inc. suing the Salvation Army because by providing free food and shelter to the homeless they were removing a potential revenue stream? It's ridiculous, and that's how it'd be if Verant claimed the same in this case.
If a 20-user server with one or two volunteer GMs can draw users from Verant, then their service obviously isn't worth much. But they have a lot that will keep drawing people, paid GMs with more time to write quests and massively multiplayer world that aren't possible on end-user machines. If with all that, they can't hold onto any users, it's their fault for doing it badly.
You may be a lawyer, but if so, you're a hideously bad one. I suspect you're just clueless.
He didn't confuse copyrights and patents, he said that the DMCA offers a new twist, he was finished the patent discussion and pointed out another law to consider. Like saying "You're safe from fraud laws. The conspiracy to commit laws might be another case though..."
Second, you can't infringe on the IP of something you don't have. Copyrights don't protect against simultaneous discovery like patents do. If two people write a nearly identical book and can both prove they did so independantly, they both get a copyright and neither has committed an offense. Because the everquest servers are not distributed to the public, only an employee would be in a position to commit copyright violation.
They could patent the protocol, people can patent 'A method whereby the post to a message base is numbered 1, thus allowing for "First Post!!!!1!" to be stated...' and have it accepted, but that doesn't mean it'll hold up in court. Hell, judge Kaplan can probably patent his system for taking bribes. But, in the real world, they'd have to show that the server employed some special patentable technology in communicating with the client, which I highly doubt it does.
As for them having the right to control the use of the software. Hell no! Should Microsoft be able to control the use of MS Word, allowing only approved content to be written?
As for the GPL issue, you wouldn't have to release code, as long as you don't distribute anything. And you wouldn't have a 'Slashdot Emulator', you'd have Slashdot, merely ported to a different language.
Yes, I'd prefer it if companies followed the law. But, obviously companies like Verant and Sony break the law all the time and like it.
If you sell razors at a loss, to build a market for blade, and don't plan to compete with the inevitable competitors, you're a fucking moron, and deserve *no* legal support. It's not the place of the courts to give every moron out there a monopoly on some product. The whole idea of a free market is that people are free to do what they will.
Nope, it's a sale. Same as buying a book. You own that book. Copyright law may govern what you can do with it, but there's no way the book publisher has entered into a contract with you, no matter what they may want to claim. Ditto with software.
The EULAs are completely meaningless, funny jokes at best, fraud at worst, and you can ignore them. Click 'I Agree' if you must, if they claim you entered into a contract you can point out that they're attempting extortion.
Slashdot Mirror
The stupidity is that they always resist new technologies that would end up helping them. They fought VCRs, they'll fight everything else.
By driving this underground they'll just keep it from ever being profitable for them. They can't stop piracy, they'll just end up keeping it from being easy, by trodding on everyone's freedoms. By doing this they'll alienate the casual pirates, the ones who would pay a small user fee for media.
As it is, they remove all potential good will from every potential customer.
It used to be that I'd buy a movie, not caring about the MPAA. Now, I'll take any means I can to hurt the MPAA as much as I can.
They want to promote their own greedy ends at the expense of everyone else in the world who wants to use digital media. Fuck them.
Only the truly stupid piss off everyone who might potentially pay them any money.
Of course, they're all liars and thieves, they'll simply bribe politicians to enact a media tax, payable by everyone, to compensate them for the piracy they claim is robbing them of their profits.
The rich always win, until the poor have had enough and shoot them. Pushing too far is *never* smart.
For a laugh, post all the keys you extract from the disks... Force the MPAA to recall all of them. Then watch the lynch-mob form when nobody can watch the new DVDs on their existing players.
It'd be amusing if the only players that worked were ones that got around the protection.
They don't have to support it, that's the great thing about IPv6, it'll coexist with older IPv4 implementations...
Basically an ISP puts all of its old IPv4 customers behind a NAT box and they're happy. The rest of the net uses the full address range and the poor little IPv4 box talks to them via a translator.
This'll even work for servers, if MS doesn't get on the ball with it, or releases a crippled/broken version, people who want Win2000 for a server (ugh) could simply put it behind an IPv6 NAT computer and the Win2000 box would think it was directly on the network without having to know the details of what the world is like.
Exactly. Linux changes itself to fit on different platforms. Bill tries to change you to fit his solutions.
There's a huge difference there.
You're completely wrong, check a dictionary for the meaning of thief, it says when you deprive the original owner of something.
Copying IP is *never* theft.
Sure, and hacking root on a closed down Linux box is nearly impossible...
Unfortunately you need to turn services on with both OSes, thus increasing the chance that you can break into them.
IMHO, the greatest resource of the security world is thousands of script kiddies... They make sure that any exploit found is so overused that security people can't help but know about it, thus fixing it.
If it wasn't for script kiddies we'd have a smaller number of black-hats but they'd have twenty years of unpatched exploits available and nobody would be able to stop them.
The script-kiddy situation is worse for those on IRC (etc) who attract their attention, but at least with the exploits being made public, banks, the military, ISPs, and other organizations that need robust security can have it, provided they have an administrator that keeps up with their job.
Sure, I mostly agree. If the information you use in your business was a trade secret which was leaked by someone under NDA or something, often you're denied the right to use it, until it's spread so widely that you can't help but to know it.
And yes, in the second example I assumed you were going public. If you let the company buy your silence, it would remain a trade secret.
Can't be, there's nothing creative about taking one set of numbers and encrypting it. You can't copyright something that doesn't entail some creative input.
I support this business model. Free trials are a great way to get people to use a product and maybe later, pay for it.
What I object to are laws that say people have a right to make money on this sort of stuff.
You mention Sony and the PS2... They sell a PS2 at a loss hoping the license fees for games make up for it. A valid business model imho.
But, what about someone who decides they don't like the PS2? Sony is out a bit of money if the person buys the system and gets the default game, plays it once and tosses it in a box, never to buy more PS2 games. Should the law mandate purchase of at least twelve games?
What if I buy a PS2 and play games on it, thus satisfying Sony's business model, but would also like to run Linux on it. Do they have a right to say I can't?
If they're concerned, they should sell the system *and* twelve games, or whatever they need to break even, as a unit, or with a clearly written contract requiring the purchase of these games by a certain date. Unfortunately, few people would be willing to spend the $800 or so that this would cost on a system they may not like, so Sony would sell few units.
Instead, they gamble. If the PS2 is good, the games will rock and people will buy them. If the PS2 sucks, nobody will buy them and they'll lose money.
I would have been willing, had DC asked politely, without threats and lies (yes, provable lies) to makre sure any CueCat software I wrote would *by default* communicate with their servers, if used in a network mode. That is, if the user scanned something and wanted to look it up, the default server would be theirs, changeable to Amazon(etc) only if the user wished. Instead they lie and threaten, telling us any unquthorized use is against the contract (this is fraud on their part) and demand we don't use the product in any way they disagree with. This is where I stop supporting them in any way.
Instead of them having a reasonable business which I would support, and hobby usage as well, they try for 100% of the pie instead of 99.9% and lose my support and the support of almost everyone else.
It's not their business model, it's them. They're lying, threatening, assholes commiting fraud and I'll take any and all actions I can to see them bankrupt in a short a time as I can manage.
Step 1: Flood their service with repetitive and automated scans and created serial numbers.
Step 2: Reveal this to their potential customers, dropping the value of their data to zero.
Maybe the next group of people to try this business model will realize that fraud and lies aren't going to help them, those people I will support.
What might be ammusing is an app that does phone home, based on an ID you choose and a list of barcodes that you choose...
You could choose to use the serial number from your scanner or one made up, and to scan a list of barcodes from your favorite products, or to download a list of such from the net...
Imagine if you and all of your friends started scanning the barcodes for your favorite small bands, thus tweaking the demographics "Hey look bob, thousands of our customers are fans of Band X, they've got as big a following as the Spice Girls (or whatever)."
Then they sell these demographics and companies like the RIAA buy them, and then start promoting bands like Band X more because of their already large following.
Use their own invasive techniques against them. Like a Neilson family taking bribes to watch certain shows.
Even better, you wouldn't have to sign any contract, and you'd be performing this intended use of the site, to look up products by their barcodes, so they'd have no legitimate problem with this.
Then, if they get too uppity, we simply reveal than a huge percentage of their demographics are completely false, driving them out of business when people refuse to pay for incorrect statistics.
Many ways...
1) 12:00 syndrome. (As stated in another message) People are too lazy to change the default, many will use his webpage because they don't know or care about alternatives.
2) By making his webpage better than the competition. Supposedly the company has more barcodes scanned and with product info than other companies like Amazon which have only books/movies/etc. So if you're trying to find information on your VCR, or bottle of Jolt, their service might be superior.
3) Good will. If they help the community and *ask* that we use their service as the default in software made for their scanner, many people will do it.
What reason would the average person (someone not downloading a perl script for their linux box) have to go out of their way and download a stand-alone program to use their barcode scanner when then one that came on a CD with it works just as well?
This applies if, for instance, I, under NDA with the MPAA posted the CSS code and the player keys. As long as they took reasonable steps to stop disemination of this information, they could still claim it was a trade secret.
But if I reverse engineered it, they lose all trade-secret rights (against people who base their code off of the reverse engineering) immediately. They could still continue prosecuting people who had violated the NDA, or did so in the future.
Almost, except for the credit clause in older BSD licenses... Don't they have to give credit, or is this only if they claim they're using the BSD code?
And, mightn't they be liable for fraud by claiming they wrote the code themselves, regardless of the BSD license? I'd be a little pissed if I bought software from a company that they claimed to write for my specific application and I found out they just used free code and called it theirs...
Not so. The DMCA protects, in the way you're thinking of, access controls. If the numbers encoded with a barcode are copyrighted and encrypted content, then the DMCA would say something about software which unencrypted them. But hardware and software which simply displayed to the user the encrypted data as read from the paper would be okay, because they'd still need the approved access control software to view it.
But, because barcode aren't encrypted, the DMCA doesn't apply at all. The UCITA does, if you're in a location that has it, but that's it. And that only applies if you install the software.
No laws were broken by writing this software.
True. An unlimited plaintext attack, it'd crack any key they'd use in very little time even with a strong algorithm.
But... they could seal the the unit, like a smartcard, and communicate with it via public-key encryption, then it'd come down to cracking the hardware, not the software.
Actually, even in a lot of cases where the company claims to own the hardware, they don't.
If you ask to buy a cellphone, and the salesman agrees to sell it to you, then you've got a pretty good case against them if they try to say the phone you paid money for isn't yours, just because the service contract says so.
The courts often support the consumer in these issues, where a company says one thing and buries something to the contrary ten pages down in a contract.
If a company says, upfront, that if you sign up for the service, they'll *rent* you the machine, that's different. But I've seen very few salesguys actually get that right, most fall back to buy/sell vocabulary and as representatives of the company, they're *selling* the hardware.
Assuming you're serious (and not just posting for the pun)...
Exactly! You anticipate what you can think of, everyone else does the same. Thus if someone else thinks of it and tries to patent it, there's proof that it's fairly obvious. If they think of it and you didn't, it's evidently not obvious to you or the other posters to the forum. (This doesn't prove it's worthy of a patent, just that nobody else already though it was.)
Why do you give them your name?
Last time I was at RS I was asked for my name, I asked if the warranty depended on it, I was told 'No,' that the receipt was enough. So I declined.
If you're willing to pass up the warranty (if any) on what you buy, they have no way to make you give them your name.
This is a great idea. They're commiting nearly fraudulent acts (threatening legal action when they know no crime has been committed and no criminal harm has been done.) so we might as well fight back, not just against their current moves, but against the company itself.
If the only thing that have that's worth anything is the data, lets ruin the data. They're not paying us for data and nobody signed a contract guaranteeing accurate data, so let's screw it up royally.
There are many ways...
1) Random IDs, your stuff... Makes it look like tons of people use it once or twice and throw it away after scanning random stuff.
2) Random ID (singular), List of Stuff... Makes it look like tons of people own exactly the same things, usefullness depends on how many people scan the exact same list.
3) Random IDs, Barcodes of favorite products... Makes it appear that thousands of people are scanning the same products. What a way to boost your favorite band's sales figures, etc.
No scanner is needed for this, just an app that will make the appropriate net connection and report a given serial # and UPC code. Then lists of stuff we want to promote (hacker-friendly bands, O'Reilly books, etc) can be passed around for people to boost their sales figures.
Quite right. If they want a contract to stick they need to make it known beforehand. "Sir, if you'd like one of our free barcode scanners and will agree to our agreement, you can have it."
Same goes for EULAs. If you buy something and didn't agree to a contract beforehand, you can use the software in any way you see fit, as if it were a book. The maker has no more power to restrict your actions than a book publisher has to restrict who can read the book, etc.
You may be bound by a license if you use the free software, because you haven't already paid to use it, but if it was bundled with the scanner which was a gift for making a purchase (ie, they gave it to you) then you're safe there too.
Sure. And Ford motor company removed a revenue stream from makers of horse drawn buggies, horse breeders, etc.
That's not illegal, that's just the changing business world.
Can you imagine a company called Shelters and Missions Inc. suing the Salvation Army because by providing free food and shelter to the homeless they were removing a potential revenue stream? It's ridiculous, and that's how it'd be if Verant claimed the same in this case.
If a 20-user server with one or two volunteer GMs can draw users from Verant, then their service obviously isn't worth much. But they have a lot that will keep drawing people, paid GMs with more time to write quests and massively multiplayer world that aren't possible on end-user machines. If with all that, they can't hold onto any users, it's their fault for doing it badly.
You may be a lawyer, but if so, you're a hideously bad one. I suspect you're just clueless.
He didn't confuse copyrights and patents, he said that the DMCA offers a new twist, he was finished the patent discussion and pointed out another law to consider. Like saying "You're safe from fraud laws. The conspiracy to commit laws might be another case though..."
Second, you can't infringe on the IP of something you don't have. Copyrights don't protect against simultaneous discovery like patents do. If two people write a nearly identical book and can both prove they did so independantly, they both get a copyright and neither has committed an offense. Because the everquest servers are not distributed to the public, only an employee would be in a position to commit copyright violation.
They could patent the protocol, people can patent 'A method whereby the post to a message base is numbered 1, thus allowing for "First Post!!!!1!" to be stated...' and have it accepted, but that doesn't mean it'll hold up in court. Hell, judge Kaplan can probably patent his system for taking bribes. But, in the real world, they'd have to show that the server employed some special patentable technology in communicating with the client, which I highly doubt it does.
As for them having the right to control the use of the software. Hell no! Should Microsoft be able to control the use of MS Word, allowing only approved content to be written?
As for the GPL issue, you wouldn't have to release code, as long as you don't distribute anything. And you wouldn't have a 'Slashdot Emulator', you'd have Slashdot, merely ported to a different language.
Why not? Now that he's finished the DeCSS case, Kaplan's probably looking for work...
Yes, I'd prefer it if companies followed the law. But, obviously companies like Verant and Sony break the law all the time and like it.
If you sell razors at a loss, to build a market for blade, and don't plan to compete with the inevitable competitors, you're a fucking moron, and deserve *no* legal support. It's not the place of the courts to give every moron out there a monopoly on some product. The whole idea of a free market is that people are free to do what they will.
Nope, it's a sale. Same as buying a book. You own that book. Copyright law may govern what you can do with it, but there's no way the book publisher has entered into a contract with you, no matter what they may want to claim. Ditto with software.
The EULAs are completely meaningless, funny jokes at best, fraud at worst, and you can ignore them. Click 'I Agree' if you must, if they claim you entered into a contract you can point out that they're attempting extortion.