Under English law you are entitled to defend your person and your property with force, provided the force you use is reasonable given the circumstances. Tony Martin's jury didn't think shooting an escaping burglar in the back was reasonable.
Do you think the jury got it wrong, or do you think people should be entitled to use *unreasonable* force?
Absolutely 100% wrong. Copyright extends to "derived works". If you start with somebody else's copyrighted work and modify it, your final product will still violate their copyright.
If, on the other hand, you start with somebody else's idea, and create your own work based on that, then you will not be violating their copyright.
The difficulty of proving you are in the second category rather than the first is one of the reasons for the "clean-room" procedure for developing software/hardware clones. One team reverse-engineers the original work and passes the (uncopyrightable) "ideas" to the second team, which creates its own work based upon those ideas. If the setup is genuinely "clean" then there will be no breach of copyright.
Golly, there was I thinking I was talking about common law contract law. I don't pretend to have a clue what the position is in Swedish law.
The idea that the validity of contractual terms on the back of a ticket is determined by whether the terms are related to some kind of governing body is unsupported by any authority of which I'm aware in any common law jurisdiction.
I'm sorry, but I've no idea what you're talking about. EULAs don't add anything to the contract between retailer and consumer: they create a contract between publisher and consumer.
Your problem with this seems philosophical rather than legal. So try thinking about this: what's your view of EULAs that give the consumer more rights than they would otherwise have? Take, for example, Borland's old "like a book" licence. By your reasoning, this didn't work.
"For airline and train travels and such, those agreements are typically made between some sort of organization representing those selling travels and some goverment or consumer organization."
This is nonsense. Look at the back of the next ticket you buy, whether for a concert, a train or a flight.
But there are many contracts which you only read after a purchase; what about the terms and conditions on the back of a train or plane ticket? This is even more egregious as you have no way to refuse these terms.
In the case of software there are two separate contracts. One between you and the shop. Another between you and the software company, governed by the EULA. As a matter of contract law, this is not an unusual situation.
Re:Where do you draw the line?
on
The Spyware Inferno
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Do you read other contracts you sign, when you sign up for a credit card or buy a plane ticket? Most people don't. This doesn't prevent those contracts being generally enforceable.
An EULA is no different.
Whether unreasonable stuff in an EULA is enforceable is a different question. Here in the UK, our various national and EU consumer protection laws mean it's probably not. I've no idea what the answer is in the US, but it probably varies State to State.
It doesn't need to cover this. The same Clause refers to "commerce with foreign nations".
The interstate commerce clause has been taken to daft lengths but there has been something of a retrenchment since US v Lopez. I don't know enough to say which side of the line the marijuana law falls (I'm an English lawyer, so have no clue).
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
You are on a hiding to nothing if you want to argue that this doesn't entitle Congress to regulate aviation.
You *might* be able to argue that the Commerce Clause doesn't entitled Congress to regulate flights within one State. See Thomas's concurrence in US v Lopez (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.Z C1.html).
I can't reach the website, but presumably this only works if you have access to the wireless network, so you'd have to break WPA/WEP as well (or find a sucker with an open network).
It is a joke. There is no basis for a lawsuit against Rockstar in the UK. Note it's not just that he'd lose: there is no cause of action under which he could sue.
There are two quite separate contracts here: one between purchaser and shop and another between purchaser and manufacturer.
The difficulty comes if the second contract isn't entered into (because either you or the manufacturer isn't willing to). The likelihood is that in that case the shop will be required to refund your purchase under an implied term of the purchase contract (or perhaps consumer contracts legislation).
The idea that validity is affected by turning off the monitor is silly. I don't think there's any doubt that an EULA can be valid as a matter of English law. Whether individual terms are valid will depend upon numerous factors, in particular whether they are reasonable.
I wonder if they're planning to actually build a cellphone. The two things Apple is best at - design and user interface - are lacking in virtually all the cellphones currently on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Under English law you are entitled to defend your person and your property with force, provided the force you use is reasonable given the circumstances. Tony Martin's jury didn't think shooting an escaping burglar in the back was reasonable.
Do you think the jury got it wrong, or do you think people should be entitled to use *unreasonable* force?
There is a difference between modifying someone else's work and using the ideas in someone else's work.
If you spent more time googling "derived work" and less time insulting me then you might pick up on this.
Charming. I thought I wrote a fairly helpful explanation.
The law doesn't care if you like it or not, or if you think it's logical or not. If you really want to learn more, google "derived work".
Absolutely 100% wrong. Copyright extends to "derived works". If you start with somebody else's copyrighted work and modify it, your final product will still violate their copyright.
If, on the other hand, you start with somebody else's idea, and create your own work based on that, then you will not be violating their copyright.
The difficulty of proving you are in the second category rather than the first is one of the reasons for the "clean-room" procedure for developing software/hardware clones. One team reverse-engineers the original work and passes the (uncopyrightable) "ideas" to the second team, which creates its own work based upon those ideas. If the setup is genuinely "clean" then there will be no breach of copyright.
Except that hasn't happened - the lawyers have accepted a fee cap in exchange for an increased share of any settlement amounts.
Golly, there was I thinking I was talking about common law contract law. I don't pretend to have a clue what the position is in Swedish law.
The idea that the validity of contractual terms on the back of a ticket is determined by whether the terms are related to some kind of governing body is unsupported by any authority of which I'm aware in any common law jurisdiction.
I'm sorry, but I've no idea what you're talking about. EULAs don't add anything to the contract between retailer and consumer: they create a contract between publisher and consumer.
Your problem with this seems philosophical rather than legal. So try thinking about this: what's your view of EULAs that give the consumer more rights than they would otherwise have? Take, for example, Borland's old "like a book" licence. By your reasoning, this didn't work.
"For airline and train travels and such, those agreements are typically made between some sort of organization representing those selling travels and some goverment or consumer organization."
This is nonsense. Look at the back of the next ticket you buy, whether for a concert, a train or a flight.
Incorrect. You can analyse it either as a collateral contract or by saying that the consideration for the EULA is either the grant of a license.
I have no idea which case you're referring to regarding adding a contract to a finished product, but somehow I doubt the relevance.
The proposition that EULAs are ineffective as a general matter has, as far as I'm aware, no support in any authority in any common law jurisdiction.
But there are many contracts which you only read after a purchase; what about the terms and conditions on the back of a train or plane ticket? This is even more egregious as you have no way to refuse these terms.
In the case of software there are two separate contracts. One between you and the shop. Another between you and the software company, governed by the EULA. As a matter of contract law, this is not an unusual situation.
Do you read other contracts you sign, when you sign up for a credit card or buy a plane ticket? Most people don't. This doesn't prevent those contracts being generally enforceable.
An EULA is no different.
Whether unreasonable stuff in an EULA is enforceable is a different question. Here in the UK, our various national and EU consumer protection laws mean it's probably not. I've no idea what the answer is in the US, but it probably varies State to State.
It doesn't need to cover this. The same Clause refers to "commerce with foreign nations".
The interstate commerce clause has been taken to daft lengths but there has been something of a retrenchment since US v Lopez. I don't know enough to say which side of the line the marijuana law falls (I'm an English lawyer, so have no clue).
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Z C1.html).
You are on a hiding to nothing if you want to argue that this doesn't entitle Congress to regulate aviation.
You *might* be able to argue that the Commerce Clause doesn't entitled Congress to regulate flights within one State. See Thomas's concurrence in US v Lopez (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.
I think you'll find they mean the Oz with wicked witches and emerald cities, rather than gang rape and suicides.
Pity, really.
Go on... spoil me - I missed that altogether.
security through unavailability?
More likely they're trying to get the pricing right the catastrophe cover they underwrite.
Their case might be good, but it would also be irrelevant - as the chap concerned (and presumably his internet server) aren't in the US.
(Extradition for a DMCA offence is pretty much out of the question.)
I can't reach the website, but presumably this only works if you have access to the wireless network, so you'd have to break WPA/WEP as well (or find a sucker with an open network).
Dead right. Amazing that someone can write an article on electronic music without making the slightest effort to research his subject.
It is a joke. There is no basis for a lawsuit against Rockstar in the UK. Note it's not just that he'd lose: there is no cause of action under which he could sue.
Two words: premium pricing.
Isn't this a licensing of itunes for Motorola phones? Quite different from an Apple designed cellphone.
This is not correct as a matter of English law.
There are two quite separate contracts here: one between purchaser and shop and another between purchaser and manufacturer.
The difficulty comes if the second contract isn't entered into (because either you or the manufacturer isn't willing to). The likelihood is that in that case the shop will be required to refund your purchase under an implied term of the purchase contract (or perhaps consumer contracts legislation).
The idea that validity is affected by turning off the monitor is silly. I don't think there's any doubt that an EULA can be valid as a matter of English law. Whether individual terms are valid will depend upon numerous factors, in particular whether they are reasonable.
I wonder if they're planning to actually build a cellphone. The two things Apple is best at - design and user interface - are lacking in virtually all the cellphones currently on the market.