>You mean like product activation in the Microsoft >Windows XP operating system and the Microsoft >Office suite?
Ehh, no idea. Doesn't seem to be any agreement done there. By the way, I just got myself a new computer through the company I work. It is a very common way here in Sweden. Basically the company makes a deal so their employers can buy computers from a manufacturer. On the paper, you borrow it from the company (who payes the computer shop), for three year. This is payed for by a reduction in the salary for three years. SInce we have HIGH taxes here in Sweden, the net effect is that you actually get the computer quite cheap since you get less tax to pay too (and if lucky can get part of the taxes the company pays directly back tax free to you. I end up payinhg about 20% of the computers price only!!!
Anyway, it came with Windows XP home edition, allready installed and ready to use. It bugged me to register so eventually I picked "register" on the start menu. It just say that it would register and a second later that it had done so. That was it, no text, no EULA, no agreement. No idea what they had done in the shop prior though. Since it is anonymous too, it would not be a way to make a correct agreement anyway though. So no, it is still not a correct way.
Note that in addition to making the agreement correctly, there is the problem of that in most cases they can't force the agreement to start with, but that is another issue, see other parts of this topic for discussions about that.
>Remember, you're not buying a product, only a >license from the software company.
Says who? If you go into a shop and buys something, that is a sale and you bought a product. Nothing else was agreed at that point so it is a normal sale, regulated through (consumer) sale laws. Remember, you can't use the EULA claiming it says it was just a license you bought since it is not part of the deal, it is something that comes later.
>So in theory, the store isn't selling you >anything.
If you enter a shop and buys something, you makeing a deal with the shop, that is it. That is also what (at least were I live) how the consumer sale laws say it works. You are dealing with the shop and any problems or issues you have, you deal with through the shop and so on. When buying something, you are not doing any deals with anyone else, inclusing the manufacturer. Of course, one can (as I allready mentioned in a post here) set it up so that upon the sale there is ALSO and additional contract set up for you to sign/agree with someone else, for example the manufacturer of the product, or for example the phone company when you buy a cell phone and so on. That has never been the case when I bought software though.
> They're just paid intermediaries/agents for the >software company. They handle the money and give >it back to you if you don't accept the license.
Well, then your country works different than were I live (Sweden), since you are dealing with the shop, period. WHat they do and have deals with is irrelevant.
>If you do accept the license, the stores get to >keep a little bit of the money for their work. >They then forward the rest to the software >company.
It is completely irrelevant and of no interest to the buyer what the shop do with the money it gets. One would indeed assume they use it in part to buy the goods they sell and also to pay salaries, rents and so on.
>Because if it did say that, if I were an evil >software company lawyer, I would make the >argument that such a (clearly visible) statement >on the outside of the box lets the would-be >purchaser know there are additional terms to the >contract, and the contract is not accepted until >those additional terms are agreed to.
But you have to distinguish between the different "contracts" here. There is one in the shop and one that is the EULA. They are two very different ones and with different parties. SO you can't claim that the purchase will have additional parts later on and that the sale is not completed in the shop, it would have to actually be an agreement (signed in some way) when you purchase the product.
And, and this might differ with country, it doesn't matter what it says on a product, it will never turn into a binding contract when you buy something if it happens to have some text on it.
>Thus buying the software is just part of the >negotiation process...
SInce it is two different "negotiations", it won't work and you can't make such sales either. Sales are (and should be in most countries) regulated quite well in consumer sale laws. YOu can't sell someone something with the condition that you will later get to know what the deal is with it after you have sold money. And again, the selling "contract" is with the shop, not with the one that makes the EULA. You must have the signing of an such contracts with the manufacturer of the software to take place AS you make the purchase. That is what typically happens if you buy a cell phone and at the same time has to sign up with an operator. Right there in the shop you have to sign the contract with the phone operator when you buy the phone and you won't be allowed to buy the phone without signing that contract. That is how it has to be done.
>buying the package does not by itself allow you >to use it and you need a licence.
Yes, I understand, the argument being that USING it is OK, but since most use requires some sort of copying which would not be "OK", it would be hard to use it to start with. Right?
Now, one can argue that copies required for use would most definately be "fair use", although it is if course open to discussion. BUT, some countries have allowances in the copyright laws that DO allow copying if it is required to use the program, hence that is not a problem.
I think most (excpet the ones writeing them) agrees that EULAs for the most part are indeed very shaky in most aspects. On top of that, even if valid as a contract, the content in itself is in many cases such that it would not be OK even if the contract itself would otherwsie have been OK.
Actually there are probably many more. As long as it fullfills the requirements of the law for how to enter a contract/agreement. Speaking of Sweden, it basically works like this.
First, there has to be an offer. The one getting the offer then needs to reply with an acceptance. It has to be an acceptance of the complete offer with no alterations or additions. If there is any such, it is considered as a completely new offer instead. Finally this acceptance MUST reach the one making the offer.
Thus it is not enough to simply think that you agree. It is not enough to write on a paper that you agree. It is not enough that you sign some paer with the contract for example. It must in addition reach the one making the offer. So if you sign a contract and mail it back, and you somehow manage to intercept the mail and take it back, there has not been any contract made.
Thus, clicking on "I agree" would typically not at all fulfill the requirements for a contract since your acceptance does not in most cases reach the one making the offer. Note that the program itself can't work on behalf of the company making the "offer" since a computer program is not a legal entety that can enter into contracts (on itself or on behalf of its creator). It would work if you had the "agreement" made online with sending of the agreement back to the company. I don't think most such "I agree"s are done that way though. In addition it is in most cases completely impossible for the company to know WHO agreed for example and whom they are making a contract with.
Other problems are that they could not make the demand in the first place to force you to agree to the EULA, but that is another story. The above was just clarifying the situation about how to enter a contract, should it otherwise be all OK. The conclusion is that, no, clicking on a button in itself is not a correct way, but combined with other meassures that makes the process satisfy the way you should enter a contract, it can very well be a correct way to enter a contract.
>Does the box say "to use the product inside you >have to agree to the EULA inside"?
Even if it did, so what? Or are the laws in your country so that you are automatically bound by what is printed on the outside of a package or "product"? In most (all?) countries that is not the case, so writing it on the outside of the box would not change anything, you still bought it and you are NOT bound by anything printed on it.
>I know this sounds crazy, but what software di >you get to install after you declined? I hit >decline on some, and it refused to continue the >install.
That is a sort of forced agreement situation, that is, you go to a store and buy something, then someone (which happens to be the one who manufactured what you bought, not the one selling it by the way) tries to force you into an agreement when you try to use something that you bought. Such agreements are not valid in most countries I would say (there are many other aspects of the process that doesn't make it valid contracts either by the way).
Someone might claim you did not in fact buy anything in the store to start with which of course is wrong, normal sale laws impies that that it is a sale and it was made in the shop. Nothing else was agreed upon or made into a contract at the point of purchase. A normal sale in other words. The fact that there is some sort of EULA that is forced upon you LATER is irrelevant since it does not hande or is part of your purchase.
Imagine if a a refrigirator manufacturer behaved in a similar fashin, You buy the refridgirator, take it home and the first time you open up the door, inside it covering the power on button you see a paper with a lengthy text. It claims that if you remove the paper and power it on (you have to remove the paper to power it on by the way), you agree to many things, such as not having bought the refridgirator at all, just a licensce to use it, there is no guarantees it works, they can at any time come home and check out all your other machines in your house, and so on, and so on. Of course that would not be OK.
And no, you don't NEED any special permission to use something just because it happens to have copyrights attached to it. YOu can use, read, run, whatever at will as long as you don't do any of the things explicit not allowed in copyright laws, which is mostly distribution, various forms of copying, public performance and so on, most having exceptions so that you can still do it in some cases (typically refered to as "fair use" I think, although it might be called something different in english, not sure.
So don't worry even if you DO click agree, especially since it in many cases in various countries does not even fullfill the requirements for how a contract/agreement is entered into.
One of the things I hate about IE, is the "back button" and how it wants to fully recreate the pag by geting it from the server again. Now, for a simple page it might work (although there is really no reason) but for a page that was generated from some sort of form (perhaps my terminology is wrong, sorry then) you typically get an error message of some sort and are completely lost, typically having to go back to the very start and again put in the input, work your way to the point you were and so on, VERY frustrating.
As a comparison, in Opera, I just click back and I get the previous page as it was stored in the cache (as far as I understand) and it works perfectly no matter what type of page.
Perhaps I have missed some setting or something but I never managed to get it to work in IE. This (together with not being able to block pop ups) is THE main reason I never use IE.
To at least appear to be something similar to an EULA, half of the text must be in all capital letters to make it easier (or harder, pick your choice) to read. In addition, part of the all capital letters should be in bold as well.
> I have to ask where you get off telling me that >there should be a hard cap on the limit of my >copyright.
If there were none, copyright would be limitedless and remain for ever. Trying to tie to to "being able to make a profit" (the purpose of copyright is not to making profit by the way) won't help since anything would always have a "value" in that people would be prepared to pay something for it and hence genereate a profit to someone since the act of copying the work is near to zero in cost. Only something no one ever wanted would have no potential for profit any more.
If that would be the case (limitless copyright), you would probably not have been able to create your books since all the inspirations, ideas and even content in it would most likely allready have been created sometime in the thousands of years people have been writing books (admitadly books might not have been written that long, but stories created, told by mouth and so on).
Thus you could probably not write any books at all without infringing on the copyright of others allready to a big extent.
>Sure. Right now any work - even this post - is >covered by copyright.
Actually a post such as that would not be covered since it would not be of enough creativity (not sure of the correct english term, in swedish it is "verkshöjd").
>Mickey Mouse still generates a profit, despite >being 76 years old. There is good reason for >Walt Disney Co. to continue the copyright,
On the other hand, copyright is not meant (or was not meant) to help generating money, it was created to help the creation of (and give an incentive for) new work. Prolonging the copyright time so that those cases that are successfully generating money after such rediculous long times we have to day (even before extensions) does not affect or improve the desire to create or is an incentive.
On the contrary, it is a way that actually prevent new work that could otherwise have been based on what had a copyright. Sure, it might have given revenue (even more perhaps) but to someone else.
So long copyrights really have the opposite effect of what copyright wants to do and is only a tool for someone to make more money at the expense of others.
"Any reproduction, distribution, display OR OTHER USE of the Software by you is unauthorized and an infringement of Nullsoft's copyright in the Software as well as a potential violation of other laws."
Hmm, since when is USE an infringement of copyright? Copyright laws doesn't cover USE, they cover things like copying, public performance and such. Using something can not in itself be a copyright infringement.
I always thought that in US, in general the argumentation was, for example, "guns doesn't kill, people do". So how come when it comes to copyright infringement and such, it is always the tool that is the cause, and not people.
The first time I met someone from Korea, and got the reply he was from "Korea", I asked if it was south or north, he looked strangely at me and said he was from "Korea". Basically, to many, there is just a Korea. True, it is currently divided into two different parts (called north and south by most of the world) but it really is just "Korea" to most of them still today.
Of course, that does not mean one shouldn't tell which one of the north and south "part" one mean when on refer to one of them specifically, but still, can be good to know.
In Sweden the situation is currently that it most likely is legal (there has been no specific case) under current laws. As late as yesterday there was a program on the television were a representative of a Swedish antipiracy organization adited that currently downloading is not illegal, it is the offering that is. Note that this applies to music, movies and such, NOT computer software.
The thing is that current swedish copyright law has an exception to the copyright owners "exclusive" right to make copies. The exception is that you are allowed to make copies for "private" use. This includes copies to yourself, family and close friends (as long as you don't do to many copies). Such copying is allowed and not in violation of copyright laws. The "problem" is that the law does not exclude making copies from "illegal" offered sources, it is still a copy for private use. Hence downloading is allowed but offering is not. The laws are currently going through a revision were most likely a change will be made so that making copies of "illegal" copies, are themselves illegal even to make/have. Otherwise it would be a way to legalize illegal copies so to speak.
Still, if you have an original that is for example bought by you, it should be no question about it, making copies for friends for example is OK. Sharing it over a p2p network though would be making it available for far more people than close friends and thus not OK.
In addition, some (many?) of the countries in Europe has a system where the loser pay both sides costs. That prevent situations of one side processing even if it is clear they are wrong, just because they know they have so much money (or rather the other side doesn't have money) that they will end up "winning" due to more money.
And in many (most?) countries, no idea about US, it is perfectly allowed to make copies of music you have bought, hence there is NO way to tell if a music file on your computer is an illegal one or not. No wonder they had to scrap that idea.
You didn't mention what country you live in. IN Sweden, it would be the children that would be the one responsible for the breaking of it and also the one you could possibly try to get money from. It would be harder the younger the child of course. But the child is still the responsible one.
As I said, the moral responsibility is another one and many parents would of course still pay for the window but that is another issue. They don't have to.
>Yes, just like if the minor breaks a window, or >steals a bike, just because you can't hold a MP3 >in your hand does not make it any different.
Hmm, I guess this is about USA, right? So you are saying that in USA, a parrent is responsible for criminal acts of their children? Interesting. So appearantly in USA someone can be responsible for someone elses actions, do that extend to other situations as well?
I can tell that for example in Sweden, a person can NEVER be responsible for someone else actions. As a parent you have a certain responsibility to watch over their children (to a lesser extent, the older the child) and for THAT you can be charged, but not for the actions itself of the children. You would never, legaly, be responsable for a window for example that the children break. Morally is another issue though.
But the basics is simple, you are never responsible for another humans actions.
I know why I buy less music than, say, 10 or 5 years ago. The reason is simple, I buy more DVDs and I go much more to the movies. In addition I find myself going to a few more concerts now than back then. Al in all, I have a limited budget for entertainment and if I spend more on one thing, I have to spend less on something else (well, my budget IS a bit larger these days, but not big enough).
I recently read that DVD sales were up a LOT here in Sweden, no wonder something else goes down. BUt that can't have anything to do with it, can it?
>They wrote the software, they can give it away, >and give people permission to use it without a >license if they so choose.
If they give it away, they give it away. There is no extra "give permission" needed for whoever got a copy to use it. You do NOT need any special permision or license to use something jst because there is some copyright on it.
>At least, when MS was handing out academic copies >at the affair I attended, it certainly came with >the piece of paper that had all the legalities of >how I could use the software.
Well, it doesn't matter what it says on the paper. Just because someone gives you a piece of paper it doesn't mean you have to follow it or care about what it says.
Slashdot Mirror
>You mean like product activation in the Microsoft
>Windows XP operating system and the Microsoft
>Office suite?
Ehh, no idea. Doesn't seem to be any agreement done there. By the way, I just got myself a new computer through the company I work. It is a very common way here in Sweden. Basically the company makes a deal so their employers can buy computers from a manufacturer. On the paper, you borrow it from the company (who payes the computer shop), for three year. This is payed for by a reduction in the salary for three years. SInce we have HIGH taxes here in Sweden, the net effect is that you actually get the computer quite cheap since you get less tax to pay too (and if lucky can get part of the taxes the company pays directly back tax free to you. I end up payinhg about 20% of the computers price only!!!
Anyway, it came with Windows XP home edition, allready installed and ready to use. It bugged me to register so eventually I picked "register" on the start menu. It just say that it would register and a second later that it had done so. That was it, no text, no EULA, no agreement. No idea what they had done in the shop prior though. Since it is anonymous too, it would not be a way to make a correct agreement anyway though. So no, it is still not a correct way.
Note that in addition to making the agreement correctly, there is the problem of that in most cases they can't force the agreement to start with, but that is another issue, see other parts of this topic for discussions about that.
>Remember, you're not buying a product, only a
>license from the software company.
Says who? If you go into a shop and buys something, that is a sale and you bought a product. Nothing else was agreed at that point so it is a normal sale, regulated through (consumer) sale laws. Remember, you can't use the EULA claiming it says it was just a license you bought since it is not part of the deal, it is something that comes later.
>So in theory, the store isn't selling you
>anything.
If you enter a shop and buys something, you makeing a deal with the shop, that is it. That is also what (at least were I live) how the consumer sale laws say it works. You are dealing with the shop and any problems or issues you have, you deal with through the shop and so on. When buying something, you are not doing any deals with anyone else, inclusing the manufacturer. Of course, one can (as I allready mentioned in a post here) set it up so that upon the sale there is ALSO and additional contract set up for you to sign/agree with someone else, for example the manufacturer of the product, or for example the phone company when you buy a cell phone and so on. That has never been the case when I bought software though.
> They're just paid intermediaries/agents for the
>software company. They handle the money and give
>it back to you if you don't accept the license.
Well, then your country works different than were I live (Sweden), since you are dealing with the shop, period. WHat they do and have deals with is irrelevant.
>If you do accept the license, the stores get to
>keep a little bit of the money for their work.
>They then forward the rest to the software
>company.
It is completely irrelevant and of no interest to the buyer what the shop do with the money it gets. One would indeed assume they use it in part to buy the goods they sell and also to pay salaries, rents and so on.
>Because if it did say that, if I were an evil
>software company lawyer, I would make the
>argument that such a (clearly visible) statement
>on the outside of the box lets the would-be
>purchaser know there are additional terms to the
>contract, and the contract is not accepted until
>those additional terms are agreed to.
But you have to distinguish between the different "contracts" here. There is one in the shop and one that is the EULA. They are two very different ones and with different parties. SO you can't claim that the purchase will have additional parts later on and that the sale is not completed in the shop, it would have to actually be an agreement (signed in some way) when you purchase the product.
And, and this might differ with country, it doesn't matter what it says on a product, it will never turn into a binding contract when you buy something if it happens to have some text on it.
>Thus buying the software is just part of the
>negotiation process...
SInce it is two different "negotiations", it won't work and you can't make such sales either. Sales are (and should be in most countries) regulated quite well in consumer sale laws. YOu can't sell someone something with the condition that you will later get to know what the deal is with it after you have sold money. And again, the selling "contract" is with the shop, not with the one that makes the EULA. You must have the signing of an such contracts with the manufacturer of the software to take place AS you make the purchase. That is what typically happens if you buy a cell phone and at the same time has to sign up with an operator. Right there in the shop you have to sign the contract with the phone operator when you buy the phone and you won't be allowed to buy the phone without signing that contract. That is how it has to be done.
>buying the package does not by itself allow you
>to use it and you need a licence.
Yes, I understand, the argument being that USING it is OK, but since most use requires some sort of copying which would not be "OK", it would be hard to use it to start with. Right?
Now, one can argue that copies required for use would most definately be "fair use", although it is if course open to discussion. BUT, some countries have allowances in the copyright laws that DO allow copying if it is required to use the program, hence that is not a problem.
I think most (excpet the ones writeing them) agrees that EULAs for the most part are indeed very shaky in most aspects. On top of that, even if valid as a contract, the content in itself is in many cases such that it would not be OK even if the contract itself would otherwsie have been OK.
Actually there are probably many more. As long as it fullfills the requirements of the law for how to enter a contract/agreement. Speaking of Sweden, it basically works like this.
First, there has to be an offer. The one getting the offer then needs to reply with an acceptance. It has to be an acceptance of the complete offer with no alterations or additions. If there is any such, it is considered as a completely new offer instead. Finally this acceptance MUST reach the one making the offer.
Thus it is not enough to simply think that you agree. It is not enough to write on a paper that you agree. It is not enough that you sign some paer with the contract for example. It must in addition reach the one making the offer. So if you sign a contract and mail it back, and you somehow manage to intercept the mail and take it back, there has not been any contract made.
Thus, clicking on "I agree" would typically not at all fulfill the requirements for a contract since your acceptance does not in most cases reach the one making the offer. Note that the program itself can't work on behalf of the company making the "offer" since a computer program is not a legal entety that can enter into contracts (on itself or on behalf of its creator). It would work if you had the "agreement" made online with sending of the agreement back to the company. I don't think most such "I agree"s are done that way though. In addition it is in most cases completely impossible for the company to know WHO agreed for example and whom they are making a contract with.
Other problems are that they could not make the demand in the first place to force you to agree to the EULA, but that is another story. The above was just clarifying the situation about how to enter a contract, should it otherwise be all OK. The conclusion is that, no, clicking on a button in itself is not a correct way, but combined with other meassures that makes the process satisfy the way you should enter a contract, it can very well be a correct way to enter a contract.
>Does the box say "to use the product inside you
>have to agree to the EULA inside"?
Even if it did, so what? Or are the laws in your country so that you are automatically bound by what is printed on the outside of a package or "product"? In most (all?) countries that is not the case, so writing it on the outside of the box would not change anything, you still bought it and you are NOT bound by anything printed on it.
>I know this sounds crazy, but what software di
>you get to install after you declined? I hit
>decline on some, and it refused to continue the
>install.
That is a sort of forced agreement situation, that is, you go to a store and buy something, then someone (which happens to be the one who manufactured what you bought, not the one selling it by the way) tries to force you into an agreement when you try to use something that you bought. Such agreements are not valid in most countries I would say (there are many other aspects of the process that doesn't make it valid contracts either by the way).
Someone might claim you did not in fact buy anything in the store to start with which of course is wrong, normal sale laws impies that that it is a sale and it was made in the shop. Nothing else was agreed upon or made into a contract at the point of purchase. A normal sale in other words. The fact that there is some sort of EULA that is forced upon you LATER is irrelevant since it does not hande or is part of your purchase.
Imagine if a a refrigirator manufacturer behaved in a similar fashin, You buy the refridgirator, take it home and the first time you open up the door, inside it covering the power on button you see a paper with a lengthy text. It claims that if you remove the paper and power it on (you have to remove the paper to power it on by the way), you agree to many things, such as not having bought the refridgirator at all, just a licensce to use it, there is no guarantees it works, they can at any time come home and check out all your other machines in your house, and so on, and so on. Of course that would not be OK.
And no, you don't NEED any special permission to use something just because it happens to have copyrights attached to it. YOu can use, read, run, whatever at will as long as you don't do any of the things explicit not allowed in copyright laws, which is mostly distribution, various forms of copying, public performance and so on, most having exceptions so that you can still do it in some cases (typically refered to as "fair use" I think, although it might be called something different in english, not sure.
So don't worry even if you DO click agree, especially since it in many cases in various countries does not even fullfill the requirements for how a contract/agreement is entered into.
Ohh, and not having figured out hot copy text from a web page *unformated* is a big reason too.
One of the things I hate about IE, is the "back button" and how it wants to fully recreate the pag by geting it from the server again. Now, for a simple page it might work (although there is really no reason) but for a page that was generated from some sort of form (perhaps my terminology is wrong, sorry then) you typically get an error message of some sort and are completely lost, typically having to go back to the very start and again put in the input, work your way to the point you were and so on, VERY frustrating.
As a comparison, in Opera, I just click back and I get the previous page as it was stored in the cache (as far as I understand) and it works perfectly no matter what type of page.
Perhaps I have missed some setting or something but I never managed to get it to work in IE. This (together with not being able to block pop ups) is THE main reason I never use IE.
To at least appear to be something similar to an EULA, half of the text must be in all capital letters to make it easier (or harder, pick your choice) to read. In addition, part of the all capital letters should be in bold as well.
> I have to ask where you get off telling me that
>there should be a hard cap on the limit of my
>copyright.
If there were none, copyright would be limitedless and remain for ever. Trying to tie to to "being able to make a profit" (the purpose of copyright is not to making profit by the way) won't help since anything would always have a "value" in that people would be prepared to pay something for it and hence genereate a profit to someone since the act of copying the work is near to zero in cost. Only something no one ever wanted would have no potential for profit any more.
If that would be the case (limitless copyright), you would probably not have been able to create your books since all the inspirations, ideas and even content in it would most likely allready have been created sometime in the thousands of years people have been writing books (admitadly books might not have been written that long, but stories created, told by mouth and so on).
Thus you could probably not write any books at all without infringing on the copyright of others allready to a big extent.
>Sure. Right now any work - even this post - is
>covered by copyright.
Actually a post such as that would not be covered since it would not be of enough creativity (not sure of the correct english term, in swedish it is "verkshöjd").
>Mickey Mouse still generates a profit, despite
>being 76 years old. There is good reason for
>Walt Disney Co. to continue the copyright,
On the other hand, copyright is not meant (or was not meant) to help generating money, it was created to help the creation of (and give an incentive for) new work. Prolonging the copyright time so that those cases that are successfully generating money after such rediculous long times we have to day (even before extensions) does not affect or improve the desire to create or is an incentive.
On the contrary, it is a way that actually prevent new work that could otherwise have been based on what had a copyright. Sure, it might have given revenue (even more perhaps) but to someone else.
So long copyrights really have the opposite effect of what copyright wants to do and is only a tool for someone to make more money at the expense of others.
"Any reproduction, distribution, display OR OTHER USE of the Software by you is unauthorized and an infringement of Nullsoft's copyright in the Software as well as a potential violation of other laws."
Hmm, since when is USE an infringement of copyright? Copyright laws doesn't cover USE, they cover things like copying, public performance and such. Using something can not in itself be a copyright infringement.
"...blamed P2P networks for spreading..."
I always thought that in US, in general the argumentation was, for example, "guns doesn't kill, people do". So how come when it comes to copyright infringement and such, it is always the tool that is the cause, and not people.
The first time I met someone from Korea, and got the reply he was from "Korea", I asked if it was south or north, he looked strangely at me and said he was from "Korea". Basically, to many, there is just a Korea. True, it is currently divided into two different parts (called north and south by most of the world) but it really is just "Korea" to most of them still today.
Of course, that does not mean one shouldn't tell which one of the north and south "part" one mean when on refer to one of them specifically, but still, can be good to know.
In Sweden the situation is currently that it most likely is legal (there has been no specific case) under current laws. As late as yesterday there was a program on the television were a representative of a Swedish antipiracy organization adited that currently downloading is not illegal, it is the offering that is. Note that this applies to music, movies and such, NOT computer software.
The thing is that current swedish copyright law has an exception to the copyright owners "exclusive" right to make copies. The exception is that you are allowed to make copies for "private" use. This includes copies to yourself, family and close friends (as long as you don't do to many copies). Such copying is allowed and not in violation of copyright laws. The "problem" is that the law does not exclude making copies from "illegal" offered sources, it is still a copy for private use. Hence downloading is allowed but offering is not. The laws are currently going through a revision were most likely a change will be made so that making copies of "illegal" copies, are themselves illegal even to make/have. Otherwise it would be a way to legalize illegal copies so to speak.
Still, if you have an original that is for example bought by you, it should be no question about it, making copies for friends for example is OK. Sharing it over a p2p network though would be making it available for far more people than close friends and thus not OK.
In addition, some (many?) of the countries in Europe has a system where the loser pay both sides costs. That prevent situations of one side processing even if it is clear they are wrong, just because they know they have so much money (or rather the other side doesn't have money) that they will end up "winning" due to more money.
Sure, that system has its problems too of course.
And in many (most?) countries, no idea about US, it is perfectly allowed to make copies of music you have bought, hence there is NO way to tell if a music file on your computer is an illegal one or not. No wonder they had to scrap that idea.
How do you know he has agreed to the EULA to start with? Perhaps he has not.
You didn't mention what country you live in. IN Sweden, it would be the children that would be the one responsible for the breaking of it and also the one you could possibly try to get money from. It would be harder the younger the child of course. But the child is still the responsible one.
As I said, the moral responsibility is another one and many parents would of course still pay for the window but that is another issue. They don't have to.
>Yes, just like if the minor breaks a window, or
>steals a bike, just because you can't hold a MP3
>in your hand does not make it any different.
Hmm, I guess this is about USA, right? So you are saying that in USA, a parrent is responsible for criminal acts of their children? Interesting. So appearantly in USA someone can be responsible for someone elses actions, do that extend to other situations as well?
I can tell that for example in Sweden, a person can NEVER be responsible for someone else actions. As a parent you have a certain responsibility to watch over their children (to a lesser extent, the older the child) and for THAT you can be charged, but not for the actions itself of the children. You would never, legaly, be responsable for a window for example that the children break. Morally is another issue though.
But the basics is simple, you are never responsible for another humans actions.
I know why I buy less music than, say, 10 or 5 years ago. The reason is simple, I buy more DVDs and I go much more to the movies. In addition I find myself going to a few more concerts now than back then. Al in all, I have a limited budget for entertainment and if I spend more on one thing, I have to spend less on something else (well, my budget IS a bit larger these days, but not big enough).
I recently read that DVD sales were up a LOT here in Sweden, no wonder something else goes down. BUt that can't have anything to do with it, can it?
>They wrote the software, they can give it away,
>and give people permission to use it without a
>license if they so choose.
If they give it away, they give it away. There is no extra "give permission" needed for whoever got a copy to use it. You do NOT need any special permision or license to use something jst because there is some copyright on it.
>At least, when MS was handing out academic copies
>at the affair I attended, it certainly came with
>the piece of paper that had all the legalities of
>how I could use the software.
Well, it doesn't matter what it says on the paper. Just because someone gives you a piece of paper it doesn't mean you have to follow it or care about what it says.