OT: Software copyright law? - Page 2

Fyron · #11 November 8th, 2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

NullAshton said:
On some licenses, they no longer give you the ability to make a backup. The copy on the origional CD is all you get.

Licenses could never "give" you the right to make copies. That is a right (still) guaranteed by fair use laws. Content owners have no ability to take that right away without getting Congress to change the law. The DMCA makes it illegal to break copy protetion, but it did not take away the right to make backup copies...

AgentZero · #12 November 8th, 2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Licenses could never "give" you the right to make copies. That is a right (still) guaranteed by fair use laws. Content owners have no ability to take that right away without getting Congress to change the law. The DMCA makes it illegal to break copy protetion, but it did not take away the right to make backup copies...

Yup, typical example of how corporations will try to deny you your legal right to something if it might cut into their profits by telling you it's illegal for you to do so. I've personally seen dozens of examples where companies have tried to intimidate people into giving up something they're entitled to by threatening them with lawyers, lawsuits, fines, prison, etc, but on the occasions where the person stood up and refused to be intimidated, the company backed off since they knew they didn't have a legal leg to stand on.

narf poit chez BOOM · #13 November 8th, 2005, 09:00 PM

Couldn't the person have them arrested for threats?

Renegade 13 · #14 November 8th, 2005, 10:29 PM

But does that mean you have the right to break copy protection if it's preventing you from making a legal copy? Not that I could break copy protection even if I wanted to, I'm not that computer savvy.

Fyron · #15 November 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM

No. Breaking the copy protection is illegal, so you could be prosecuted for that... Of course, the whole thing is a heinous violation of consumer rights, so it is best to ignore it and go on practicing fair use rights. As a Canadian, it doesn't apply to you, so you need not worry.

Atrocities · #16 November 9th, 2005, 12:41 AM

One of these days people will discover that copyright laws are about as worthless as the paper they have been written upon. Look that the chines, they don't care about US copyright laws.

Atrocities · #17 November 9th, 2005, 12:46 AM

I am my own copyright law! (For validation see Mr. Remington and his associate Mr. Ruger.)

Jack Simth · #18 November 9th, 2005, 02:04 AM

Let's see....
1) leagally speaking, the EULA is only in power because you click the "I agree" button during installation.
2) leagally speaking, the only thing making decompiling and recompiling the program with modifications for your own use illeagle is the EULA
3) Regular copyright law (no distribution) still applies

Query: What happens if, before you install the software, before you encounter the EULA in question, you decompile the software, then recompile it without the EULA?

Phoenix-D · #19 November 9th, 2005, 02:52 AM

You'd probably have to break the copy protection to do so; DMCA again. Also a lot of the EULAs have clauses to the effect of "by using this software", and its arguable that you're using it.

I sort of doubt the ethicallity of those sort of clauses, but oh well. Much worse is the EULA itself, given that A. its a contract you have to accept to use something you already paid for, and B. if you don't accept it, most stores won't accept a return..

Jack Simth · #20 November 9th, 2005, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Phoenix-D said:
You'd probably have to break the copy protection to do so; DMCA again.

Presuming, for the sake of argument, that no such copy-protection is in place; perhaps it's downloaded software for a MMORPG, a demo for some utility, software purchased online, or some such.

Quote:

Phoenix-D said:Also a lot of the EULAs have clauses to the effect of "by using this software", and its arguable that you're using it.

Ah... so if I make up a user agreement for my EVIL(TM) router that basically says anything sent through this device becomes my intellectual property, and then go browse an art site, I can later sue the art site for distributing my intellectual property without my permission, (after all, in order to send the images to my browser, they first had to be sent through my EVIL(TM) router....) despite the fact that the art site had no way of knowing that my router was EVIL(TM), even though if you type the IP on my EVIL(TM) router into any functioning and connected web browser it returns a simple english text web page with the user agreement due to the nature of the EVIL(TM) routing software? No? How does the EVIL(TM) router useage agreement scenerio differ from not encountering the EULA of a piece of software, and still being bound?

Quote:

Phoenix-D said:
I sort of doubt the ethicallity of those sort of clauses, but oh well. Much worse is the EULA itself, given that A. its a contract you have to accept to use something you already paid for, and B. if you don't accept it, most stores won't accept a return..

Oh, it gets better - there's usually a clause that says it's not fit for any particular purpose, while the advertising on the package says that it's great for all sorts of purposes - hmm.... how is "False Advertising" defined? Perhaps "Bait and Switch"? Don't have the recources, but it might just be interesting to test that in court at some point....