>Actually EULAs are enforceable - if you think >they aren't --- pirate some software and go to >the company and tell them (showing them proof) >that you pirated the software. Watch as your life >gets thrown into litigation hell.
Huh, what does pirating have to do with EULAs? You can't do that because the law (copyright law to be specific) says you can't. There is no need for any EULA at all to prevent you from that.
You are confusing ownership of copyright twith ownership of individual copies ot the work (that has copyright). It is two very seperate things. We are not selling or buying copyrights (the non physical thing). We are buying and talking about the individual, physical, copies of the work. They are no different than any other physical product for everything EXCEPT what is regulated by copyright laws and that is basically copying (making new copies), distributing themor making public performances. Otherwsie there is really no difference between a book, computer software or a dishwasher.
He didn't say he bought the copyright, he said he bought the cpecific copy of the work. Ownership of the copyright is completely separate from ownership of individual copies of the work. So no, by buying a copy of Mandrake or SUSE, you won't own the copyright to the code. You can still do anything you want with your copy that is not prohibited by copyright (which is basically creation of new copies, distribution of them and public performance and such) or by other laws.
>Read the agreement. It says, in very plain terms, >SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD.
What agreement? Did you make any such agreement in the shop? If not, how can it cover your purchase? It is a contract forced onto you after you have bought something that basically tries to reovke the purchase you have made.
>And when you run the installer, almost always you >have to click through to AGREE to this.
If it DID cover thepurchase for some magical reason, why would you ever have to agree to it (again)? You are using the agreement as the reason for why you need to agree to it to start with. Before you agree to it, it is irrelevant what it says, hence it can't regulate the nessecity to agree to it.
Says who? What you do buy is a copy of the book and the words in it.
>The ownership of the words contained therein >remain with someone else.
The COPYRIGHT to the is hold by someone else. That does not mean I own a specific copy of them. Ownership of copyright is completely separated from owning individual copies of the work.
>You cannot sell them as your own, though you can >sell the media.
I can sell MY copy of the work I have bought. This exception to distribution rights of copyright is handled somewhat different by different countries copyright laws. I believe in USA it goes under the first sale doctrine for example.
>There is an implied agreement between purchaser >(you) and seller (ultimately the copyright >holder) that you will not break copyright law and >use it inappropriately.
Huh? It is the nature of laws that you can't break them, has nothing to do with you and the dealer, you can make up whatever deal you want, laws still apply.
>The only way you are can truly "buy software" is > to purchase the ownership rights of the >software.
You are confusing owning the copyright with owning the specific copyies of the copyrighted work. It is two separate things.
>You may not be bound to the EULA when you buy it. >You are bound to it when you install it.
The "problem" is that after you have bought it, no one can force you into agreeing to something that is yours. By preventing you to use something you have bought if you don't agree to a bunch of things, they are trying to do so. Imagine if buy a coffee machine and when you get home and want to plug it in, there is a piece of paper claiming that by using the coffee machine you agree to a bunch of stuff, including that you don't own it at all, just have a license to use it and it is still theirs. In addition you can only use coffee they aprove. WOuld that be acpetable? Of course not!
>But installing software is making a copy. In >fact, executing an application makes a copy in >RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these >copies.
Most countries has provisions in their copyright laws specifically making excpetions for such "copies" needed for using software, thus you don't need any such permision at all.
By the way, if you needed it, how would you be able to run the installer in the first place? Were did you get the permision to run it, you would not have agreed to any permision yet at that moment?
>Ya know in the olden days when that big "FBI" >thing would come on the screen when you watched a >VHS tape? ever read it? It tells you the rules >for use: an EULA.
Never lived in USA, but I would guess it told you about the LAWS. The laws would always apply regardless of if you agree to them or not.
>I maintain that software should be like music CDs >and movie DVDs: If you posess a copy, you can use >it however you want; you just can't copy it and >distribute the copies.
Most countries doesn't have regulation in their copyright laws saying use of something is forbidden if there is copyright on it. So yes, if you own it (or really, even if you don't) you can use it at will unless you break other laws of course. IF you don't is the owner of the specific opy, you might be in trouble just as if you use someone elses car or whatever. Still, there is nothing in copyrigh laws that prevent me from using a friends book or computer game (obviously we can't do it at the same time).
>While I agree, you know and I know that a lot of >people won't play by the rules, and I think the >company has a right to protect their property. >When you click "I accept" you, too, are saying >that they have the right to do so as well.
You know, they they initially SOLD you the copy of their software, it magically turned into yours. If they don't like that concept, they should not sell software to start with!!
>As for corporate proprietary software, you either >choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you >choose not to. There is no God-given right in >this situation.
As for corporates making software, if they want to sell it, they have to accept normal laws regulating sales. If they don't like the concept, don't sell or don't create software to start with.
>Duped into buying a license? Have you (legally) >bought any software that wasn't licensed?
Yes, I have gone to various computer stores (or from online stores) and bought software, including windows and games (but not Half-Life) just I have bought books, food, shoes and even the computer to run the software on.
In one specific case I was informed in the shop when I wanted to buy a software program (Student Edition of Visiual Studio) that I could not buy it, instead I was handed a contract I had to send to Microsoft first and then get the software, that was the ONLY time it was not a stright forward sale covered by sale laws (consumer sale laws by the way).
> Companies don't sell software; they never have.
So yes, in my experience they DO sell as is evident from entering ANY store selling software (and actually it is the store that sells you the software and not the original creator of the software.
>You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other >copyrighted software;
Just as with anything you buy, you own it, so yes, I happen to own a copy of windows for example. There is nothing inherant with copyright that says you can never own it.
>Console games too are mere licenses; you can't >simply redistribute Halo 2, becuase it would be >in violation of your license.
You have the right to sell anything you have bought unless you have made a contract PRIOR to buying it saying you can't, usually such a demand would most likely not be valid anyway though.
For the sake of argument, lets say it IS ok to change everything of a purchase through a contract after the sale, would you say it is ok to "redistribute" Halo 2 after the purchase but before you agree to the additional contract? If not, why? Would you say it would be OK for someone selling you a refrigirator and when you get home and want to turn it on, you find a big paper covering the power on switch claiming that if you turn it on, you agree to a whole bunch of things, including that you don't own it at all really, it is just a license to use it and that you can only put food in it that is sold by specific manufacturers. If this is not OK, why?
>Also, check your local laws. Stores in MA cannot >have a "No Refunds" policy, because that is >against state laws. Also, they cannot turn down a >refund within 30 days of the purchase date.. but >that's again in MA.
Actually, many countries has laws dealing with sales telling that one can't change the sale contract after the sale is complete or that you can't force someone to a contract just because he or she wants to use something allready bought. In addition, most countries won't make text printed on something you buy into a contract. And so on, typically to protect consumers from bad practices from sellers.
In addition, when you buy something, the full deal is with the store (or whoever you buy from), not the original manufacturer, if there is to be such additional contract, it should be done prior or at the same time as the purchase, like when you buy a cell phone and sometimes make a deal with a phone company.
>Yeah, and since these are cars, unlike software, >they becomy my property whan I buy them.
Ehh, if you BUY software, then of course it (the copy you buy) becomes yours, that is what buying means. Sure, some try to fool you into believing otherwise, but that does not change what buying is and how it is handled and treated by for example the law.
> take it you never hit the can or go the fridge >during the station breaks. And of course you >wouldn't _ever_ think of (gasp!) changing the >channel.
Of course not, every good citizen has as many television sets as there are channels, otherwise you would be hurting the ones you don't look at!!
>He just said that not watching commercials does >hurt someone.
Since when does this "not doing something" equals doing harm? How can you harm someone by not looking at an add? Sure, they can't make as much money from ads if no one looks at them, but that does not equal doing harm to them if you don't look at it. BY that reasoning all we do all day long is harming basically everyone. If I don't give a begger money, I actually harm him, if I don't buy a newspaper I harm them since they could make more money, if I don't visit the movie I harm them, and if I do go to the movie but arrive late (and miss the ads at the start, I hurt them (should I then pay more if I am late perhaps?) and so on. That is in my opinion completely false and erroneous thinking but it is brought up again and again, usually in relation to copyright.
There have been Europeans in the game since the start of the closed beta early last spring, they are still there and can play so obviously there is no IP check or other check either. I live in Sweden and have been playing since the start of the closed beta and was playing this past weekend without any problem. So there should be no problem at all.
>The copy is an "unauthorized distribution" >(i.e., against the will of the copyright >holder).
It doesn't matter what the will of the copyright holder is. Distribution is a right to the copyright holder that in most countries is consumed after the first sale. After that, the copyright holder no longer has a right over the distribution of the specific copy. I believe this is what goes under the "first sale doctrine" in USA for example. It is similar in other countries. SO there is no need for an authorization at all to resell a CD.
What I also find a problem with such a way of thinking, is that it makes up money out of thin air. Even counting those that actually MIGHT have bought, would have cut back and not spend that money on something else (who would then be losing money?).
Even if a person would actually buy music if he could not copy it, he might not have the money. If I copy 2000 songs, does that suddenly mean I actually have (or would have) the money to spend on say 200 CDs?
>From what I understand, it seems in your country >I would need to label this item "Possibly >defective goods -- untested -- use at your own >risk". Whatever. I can still fit that on the >label.
No, you can't get away it in that way. You would have to tell what is wrong with a product. Can't just go out telling "possibly wrong", that would be the same as "as is". As for the warranty, you can't get arround that at all really, you still have the minimum 2 years. The "as is", part was in reference that you can't get away from the responsability to tell about a product and its quality and so on. It has nothing to do with warranty.
Of course there is a way arround it, telling what is wrong with the product, selling it at a bit lower price and so on. As long as you tell about the product, you can of course sell damaged thing or things that doesn't work. What you can't do is just say "as is" and in effect have the customer figure out what might be wrong.
>A law like this in North America would cause >warranties to default to zero. All products would >be labelled "As Is" to reduce liability.
Actually, looking at Sweden which also has the "two year", such laws are non negotiable, that is, you can't in any way contract them away or change them if it tirns worse for the consumer. So there is really no way arround it (you can make it longer than 2 years if you want though).
In addition, "as is" don't change anything since what is important is what a consumer could expect from a product. If it is worse, the seller has an obligation to tell so. Claiming "as is" would put an additional burden on the consumer to try to investigate a product figuring out if it is different from what one could expect (trying to figure out if the hard disc is of a type that breaks within a year as oposed to normally working for many, many years. That is not something a typical consumer can do or have the knowledge about, hence the reason for not letting "as is" mean anything at all. There is actually a law here specifically saying that even if it was sold "as is", the product is considered faulty or damaged if it does not live up to what the consumer could have expected. So the "as is" doesn't really have any importance or meaning at all and doesn't let the seller get away with anything. At least not here in Sweden and perhaps other EU countries as well. Appearantly USA seems different.
Ehh, excuse me, but the whole point of your post I replied to was that if you did NOT agree to the EULA, you could not use the software. If you did NOT agree to it, it doesn't matter what it says in it, now do it?
>But if you never agree to the EULA (by attaching >a valid signature (that is, not a monkey's)), >you're not allowed to use the software. So >what's the point?
Not allowed to use the software? Says who? Or what law? You allready bought it and can use it as much as you want, just as you can use the umbrella you have bought. Actually you can use it (from a copyright point of view) even if you have nought bought it, you can get into problems with not having aquired the physical copy properly though, but that is another issue and have nothing to do with copyright. Note that copyright dos not in ANY way cover use or give use as an exclusive right to the copyright holder.
Not sure about the laws in your coutry regarding contracts, but typically contracts can only be made between legal entities, like real persons or companies and such that have legal status as entities that can, for example, make contracts. A computer program is NOT such a thing. That is, a computer program can not enter a contract, neither by itself nor as an agent. It can surely be used as a tool to aid in the agreement being made, but ultimately, the software compnay must be involved, for example, by recieveing your agreement and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
>Actually EULAs are enforceable - if you think
>they aren't --- pirate some software and go to
>the company and tell them (showing them proof)
>that you pirated the software. Watch as your life
>gets thrown into litigation hell.
Huh, what does pirating have to do with EULAs? You can't do that because the law (copyright law to be specific) says you can't. There is no need for any EULA at all to prevent you from that.
You are confusing ownership of copyright twith ownership of individual copies ot the work (that has copyright). It is two very seperate things. We are not selling or buying copyrights (the non physical thing). We are buying and talking about the individual, physical, copies of the work. They are no different than any other physical product for everything EXCEPT what is regulated by copyright laws and that is basically copying (making new copies), distributing themor making public performances. Otherwsie there is really no difference between a book, computer software or a dishwasher.
He didn't say he bought the copyright, he said he bought the cpecific copy of the work. Ownership of the copyright is completely separate from ownership of individual copies of the work. So no, by buying a copy of Mandrake or SUSE, you won't own the copyright to the code. You can still do anything you want with your copy that is not prohibited by copyright (which is basically creation of new copies, distribution of them and public performance and such) or by other laws.
>No, you buy LICENSES.
>Read the agreement. It says, in very plain terms,
>SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD.
What agreement? Did you make any such agreement in the shop? If not, how can it cover your purchase? It is a contract forced onto you after you have bought something that basically tries to reovke the purchase you have made.
>And when you run the installer, almost always you
>have to click through to AGREE to this.
If it DID cover thepurchase for some magical reason, why would you ever have to agree to it (again)? You are using the agreement as the reason for why you need to agree to it to start with. Before you agree to it, it is irrelevant what it says, hence it can't regulate the nessecity to agree to it.
>You're buying the media, but not the words.
Says who? What you do buy is a copy of the book and the words in it.
>The ownership of the words contained therein
>remain with someone else.
The COPYRIGHT to the is hold by someone else. That does not mean I own a specific copy of them. Ownership of copyright is completely separated from owning individual copies of the work.
>You cannot sell them as your own, though you can
>sell the media.
I can sell MY copy of the work I have bought. This exception to distribution rights of copyright is handled somewhat different by different countries copyright laws. I believe in USA it goes under the first sale doctrine for example.
>There is an implied agreement between purchaser
>(you) and seller (ultimately the copyright
>holder) that you will not break copyright law and
>use it inappropriately.
Huh? It is the nature of laws that you can't break them, has nothing to do with you and the dealer, you can make up whatever deal you want, laws still apply.
>The only way you are can truly "buy software" is
> to purchase the ownership rights of the
>software.
You are confusing owning the copyright with owning the specific copyies of the copyrighted work. It is two separate things.
>You may not be bound to the EULA when you buy it.
>You are bound to it when you install it.
The "problem" is that after you have bought it, no one can force you into agreeing to something that is yours. By preventing you to use something you have bought if you don't agree to a bunch of things, they are trying to do so. Imagine if buy a coffee machine and when you get home and want to plug it in, there is a piece of paper claiming that by using the coffee machine you agree to a bunch of stuff, including that you don't own it at all, just have a license to use it and it is still theirs. In addition you can only use coffee they aprove. WOuld that be acpetable? Of course not!
>But installing software is making a copy. In
>fact, executing an application makes a copy in
>RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these
>copies.
Most countries has provisions in their copyright laws specifically making excpetions for such "copies" needed for using software, thus you don't need any such permision at all.
By the way, if you needed it, how would you be able to run the installer in the first place? Were did you get the permision to run it, you would not have agreed to any permision yet at that moment?
>Ya know in the olden days when that big "FBI"
>thing would come on the screen when you watched a
>VHS tape? ever read it? It tells you the rules
>for use: an EULA.
Never lived in USA, but I would guess it told you about the LAWS. The laws would always apply regardless of if you agree to them or not.
>I maintain that software should be like music CDs
>and movie DVDs: If you posess a copy, you can use
>it however you want; you just can't copy it and
>distribute the copies.
Most countries doesn't have regulation in their copyright laws saying use of something is forbidden if there is copyright on it. So yes, if you own it (or really, even if you don't) you can use it at will unless you break other laws of course. IF you don't is the owner of the specific opy, you might be in trouble just as if you use someone elses car or whatever. Still, there is nothing in copyrigh laws that prevent me from using a friends book or computer game (obviously we can't do it at the same time).
>While I agree, you know and I know that a lot of
>people won't play by the rules, and I think the
>company has a right to protect their property.
>When you click "I accept" you, too, are saying
>that they have the right to do so as well.
You know, they they initially SOLD you the copy of their software, it magically turned into yours. If they don't like that concept, they should not sell software to start with!!
>As for corporate proprietary software, you either
>choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you
>choose not to. There is no God-given right in
>this situation.
As for corporates making software, if they want to sell it, they have to accept normal laws regulating sales. If they don't like the concept, don't sell or don't create software to start with.
>Duped into buying a license? Have you (legally)
>bought any software that wasn't licensed?
Yes, I have gone to various computer stores (or from online stores) and bought software, including windows and games (but not Half-Life) just I have bought books, food, shoes and even the computer to run the software on.
In one specific case I was informed in the shop when I wanted to buy a software program (Student Edition of Visiual Studio) that I could not buy it, instead I was handed a contract I had to send to Microsoft first and then get the software, that was the ONLY time it was not a stright forward sale covered by sale laws (consumer sale laws by the way).
> Companies don't sell software; they never have.
So yes, in my experience they DO sell as is evident from entering ANY store selling software (and actually it is the store that sells you the software and not the original creator of the software.
>You don't own Windows, or Half-Life, or any other
>copyrighted software;
Just as with anything you buy, you own it, so yes, I happen to own a copy of windows for example. There is nothing inherant with copyright that says you can never own it.
>Console games too are mere licenses; you can't
>simply redistribute Halo 2, becuase it would be
>in violation of your license.
You have the right to sell anything you have bought unless you have made a contract PRIOR to buying it saying you can't, usually such a demand would most likely not be valid anyway though.
For the sake of argument, lets say it IS ok to change everything of a purchase through a contract after the sale, would you say it is ok to "redistribute" Halo 2 after the purchase but before you agree to the additional contract? If not, why? Would you say it would be OK for someone selling you a refrigirator and when you get home and want to turn it on, you find a big paper covering the power on switch claiming that if you turn it on, you agree to a whole bunch of things, including that you don't own it at all really, it is just a license to use it and that you can only put food in it that is sold by specific manufacturers. If this is not OK, why?
>Also, check your local laws. Stores in MA cannot
>have a "No Refunds" policy, because that is
>against state laws. Also, they cannot turn down a
>refund within 30 days of the purchase date.. but
>that's again in MA.
Actually, many countries has laws dealing with sales telling that one can't change the sale contract after the sale is complete or that you can't force someone to a contract just because he or she wants to use something allready bought. In addition, most countries won't make text printed on something you buy into a contract. And so on, typically to protect consumers from bad practices from sellers.
In addition, when you buy something, the full deal is with the store (or whoever you buy from), not the original manufacturer, if there is to be such additional contract, it should be done prior or at the same time as the purchase, like when you buy a cell phone and sometimes make a deal with a phone company.
>Yeah, and since these are cars, unlike software,
>they becomy my property whan I buy them.
Ehh, if you BUY software, then of course it (the copy you buy) becomes yours, that is what buying means. Sure, some try to fool you into believing otherwise, but that does not change what buying is and how it is handled and treated by for example the law.
> take it you never hit the can or go the fridge
>during the station breaks. And of course you
>wouldn't _ever_ think of (gasp!) changing the
>channel.
Of course not, every good citizen has as many television sets as there are channels, otherwise you would be hurting the ones you don't look at!!
>He just said that not watching commercials does
>hurt someone.
Since when does this "not doing something" equals doing harm? How can you harm someone by not looking at an add? Sure, they can't make as much money from ads if no one looks at them, but that does not equal doing harm to them if you don't look at it. BY that reasoning all we do all day long is harming basically everyone. If I don't give a begger money, I actually harm him, if I don't buy a newspaper I harm them since they could make more money, if I don't visit the movie I harm them, and if I do go to the movie but arrive late (and miss the ads at the start, I hurt them (should I then pay more if I am late perhaps?) and so on. That is in my opinion completely false and erroneous thinking but it is brought up again and again, usually in relation to copyright.
There have been Europeans in the game since the start of the closed beta early last spring, they are still there and can play so obviously there is no IP check or other check either. I live in Sweden and have been playing since the start of the closed beta and was playing this past weekend without any problem. So there should be no problem at all.
>The copy is an "unauthorized distribution"
>(i.e., against the will of the copyright
>holder).
It doesn't matter what the will of the copyright holder is. Distribution is a right to the copyright holder that in most countries is consumed after the first sale. After that, the copyright holder no longer has a right over the distribution of the specific copy. I believe this is what goes under the "first sale doctrine" in USA for example. It is similar in other countries. SO there is no need for an authorization at all to resell a CD.
What I also find a problem with such a way of thinking, is that it makes up money out of thin air. Even counting those that actually MIGHT have bought, would have cut back and not spend that money on something else (who would then be losing money?).
Even if a person would actually buy music if he could not copy it, he might not have the money. If I copy 2000 songs, does that suddenly mean I actually have (or would have) the money to spend on say 200 CDs?
>From what I understand, it seems in your country
>I would need to label this item "Possibly
>defective goods -- untested -- use at your own
>risk". Whatever. I can still fit that on the
>label.
No, you can't get away it in that way. You would have to tell what is wrong with a product. Can't just go out telling "possibly wrong", that would be the same as "as is". As for the warranty, you can't get arround that at all really, you still have the minimum 2 years. The "as is", part was in reference that you can't get away from the responsability to tell about a product and its quality and so on. It has nothing to do with warranty.
Of course there is a way arround it, telling what is wrong with the product, selling it at a bit lower price and so on. As long as you tell about the product, you can of course sell damaged thing or things that doesn't work. What you can't do is just say "as is" and in effect have the customer figure out what might be wrong.
>A law like this in North America would cause
>warranties to default to zero. All products would
>be labelled "As Is" to reduce liability.
Actually, looking at Sweden which also has the "two year", such laws are non negotiable, that is, you can't in any way contract them away or change them if it tirns worse for the consumer. So there is really no way arround it (you can make it longer than 2 years if you want though).
In addition, "as is" don't change anything since what is important is what a consumer could expect from a product. If it is worse, the seller has an obligation to tell so. Claiming "as is" would put an additional burden on the consumer to try to investigate a product figuring out if it is different from what one could expect (trying to figure out if the hard disc is of a type that breaks within a year as oposed to normally working for many, many years. That is not something a typical consumer can do or have the knowledge about, hence the reason for not letting "as is" mean anything at all. There is actually a law here specifically saying that even if it was sold "as is", the product is considered faulty or damaged if it does not live up to what the consumer could have expected. So the "as is" doesn't really have any importance or meaning at all and doesn't let the seller get away with anything. At least not here in Sweden and perhaps other EU countries as well. Appearantly USA seems different.
Actually Diablo 1 was released a few days before New Year (96 I think).
Ooops, I noted the initial poster I replied to was not the same as the second one (which was an AC). My point to the AC is still the same though.
>Says the EULA.
Ehh, excuse me, but the whole point of your post I replied to was that if you did NOT agree to the EULA, you could not use the software. If you did NOT agree to it, it doesn't matter what it says in it, now do it?
>But if you never agree to the EULA (by attaching
>a valid signature (that is, not a monkey's)),
>you're not allowed to use the software. So
>what's the point?
Not allowed to use the software? Says who? Or what law? You allready bought it and can use it as much as you want, just as you can use the umbrella you have bought. Actually you can use it (from a copyright point of view) even if you have nought bought it, you can get into problems with not having aquired the physical copy properly though, but that is another issue and have nothing to do with copyright. Note that copyright dos not in ANY way cover use or give use as an exclusive right to the copyright holder.
Not sure about the laws in your coutry regarding contracts, but typically contracts can only be made between legal entities, like real persons or companies and such that have legal status as entities that can, for example, make contracts. A computer program is NOT such a thing. That is, a computer program can not enter a contract, neither by itself nor as an agent. It can surely be used as a tool to aid in the agreement being made, but ultimately, the software compnay must be involved, for example, by recieveing your agreement and so on.