The AC's point is that copying is a basic requirement of use when it comes to software. Even using software on one machine involves "copying" the software into memory. An earlier post pointed out that even a book includes some mandatory "copying" (image in retina, information in wetware memory, etc.). What the AC is saying, and what you seem to be missing, is that basic copyright law allows for this sort of "copying required to use". Further, in the US, the courts have ruled that it provides certain "fair-use" rights to consumers. While multiple software installs is gray area, it is clear that the terms of most EULAs restrict the user's rights far more than basic copyright law.
This is where the legality of click-through agreements come in. They are supposed to be enforceable under contract law, but in most cases they do not constitute a valid contract. There is no "meeting of the minds", simply terms dictated by the vendor. I've been party to many enterprise license ageements, and I can say that those really are contracts. There is a give-and-take on terms, and both sides have legal departments that review the contracts thoroughly (at least in theory). Click-through EULAs are similar to those warranty cards that say you must fill these out to receive warranty protection. They are an attempt by the vendor to coerce the users into desired behavior, but currenty they are unenforcable.
follow the trends, when Americans are attacked they always fight back, they never just give up, it didnt happen during the Tea Party in Boston, it didnt happen on 911, why would it happen now?
Sorry to get OT, but how can you endorse these views and support a big-government tax-and-spend liberal like Howard Dean in you sig? If anything, these views are much closer to libertarian.
I bet your mother is proud of you, son. From m-w.com: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Your own definition seems to undermine your arguement. You can say that copyright infringement involves "taking", but the rightful owner is not being deprived of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realized that Kobe Bryant is the defendent, don't you?
The AC's point is that copying is a basic requirement of use when it comes to software. Even using software on one machine involves "copying" the software into memory. An earlier post pointed out that even a book includes some mandatory "copying" (image in retina, information in wetware memory, etc.). What the AC is saying, and what you seem to be missing, is that basic copyright law allows for this sort of "copying required to use". Further, in the US, the courts have ruled that it provides certain "fair-use" rights to consumers. While multiple software installs is gray area, it is clear that the terms of most EULAs restrict the user's rights far more than basic copyright law.
This is where the legality of click-through agreements come in. They are supposed to be enforceable under contract law, but in most cases they do not constitute a valid contract. There is no "meeting of the minds", simply terms dictated by the vendor. I've been party to many enterprise license ageements, and I can say that those really are contracts. There is a give-and-take on terms, and both sides have legal departments that review the contracts thoroughly (at least in theory). Click-through EULAs are similar to those warranty cards that say you must fill these out to receive warranty protection. They are an attempt by the vendor to coerce the users into desired behavior, but currenty they are unenforcable.
follow the trends, when Americans are attacked they always fight back, they never just give up, it didnt happen during the Tea Party in Boston, it didnt happen on 911, why would it happen now?
Sorry to get OT, but how can you endorse these views and support a big-government tax-and-spend liberal like Howard Dean in you sig? If anything, these views are much closer to libertarian.
I bet your mother is proud of you, son. From m-w.com: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Your own definition seems to undermine your arguement. You can say that copyright infringement involves "taking", but the rightful owner is not being deprived of anything.