OT: Software copyright law? - Page 3

Suicide Junkie · #21 November 9th, 2005, 03:40 AM

Isn't there something about agreements made under duress?

A company holding my legally purchased property hostage sounds applicable.

PS: "Terrorism"
As national security advisor, I advise that these companies using EULAs be declared part of the "axis of evil" and bombed into the ground like the terrorists they are.

Atrocities · #22 November 9th, 2005, 03:59 AM

Actually they should by law disclose the agreements PRIOR to purchase. Have any of you tried to return software to the place of purchase? They simply will not take it back. In most cases they will only exchange it. Is that not a violation of some agreement somewhere. Seems to me that most software manufactures say that if you do not agree to the terms of use, that you can return the software for a refund. But if the stores will not refund your money.... they have broken the terms for the agreement.

narf poit chez BOOM · #23 November 9th, 2005, 04:22 AM

Yeah, one person doesn't have the money to take a company to court, but a bunch of people do.

Wolfman77 · #24 November 9th, 2005, 11:03 AM

And that answers the first question of which law would supersede the other in court: The one that has the most money protecting it.

Atrocities · #25 November 9th, 2005, 07:14 PM

99% of all of the funds won in 99% of all class action lawsuits that are won or are settled end up going the trial lawyers.

American General Finance was once sued for improperly figuring interest on loans. It cost me around $440.00 according to the lawsuit. AG settled for nearly a 100 million or so and when it was all said and done, and mind you there were only about 2,000 plaintiffs, I got a check for, and I kid you not, $0.27.

AgentZero · #26 November 9th, 2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
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.

Well, killing someone is also illegal, however it is legal to kill someone in self-defense. Here, you have two seemingly contradictory laws, one saying you cannot kill, and the other saying you can to protect yourself. Obviously, the law stating you may kill in self-defense takes precedent over the one stating you cannot kill, as an exception is made in cases where breaking one law (killing) would prevent you from excersising your right to something you are entitled to (living). Therefore, one can argue that an exception must be made allowing you to break one law (copying the software) in order to excersise your right to something you are entitled to (archival copy).

PS: This argument actually works! A few years ago I posted a query on an unnamed software company's forum asking how to go about creating a CD image of the installation CDs so I could have a backup. Shortly thereafter, the thread was deleted and I recieved a rather nasty email from their law department stating that what I was attempting was in violation of copyright laws, the EULA, etc. and that if I did not desist in my attempts to do so, I would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I wrote them back a polite little reply informing them that their attempts to prevent me from making an archival copy were in violation of MY legally enshrined right to create an archival copy of legally purchased software. I included a scanned copy of my receipt and advised them (bluffing, of course) that if they did not desist in their attempts to deny me my consumer rights, then I would prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Within three days, my thread was reinstated, and I recieved an apology from their law department along with a detailed email from their tech support on how to create a CD image. Sweet, no?
Also kinda helped that they were running a massive 'Customer First' advertising blitz at the time, so a lawsuit from a customer claiming the company was attempting to deny him his rights wouldn't have gone over too well with the almighty marketing department.

AgentZero · #27 November 9th, 2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
99% of all of the funds won in 99% of all class action lawsuits that are won or are settled end up going the trial lawyers.

American General Finance was once sued for improperly figuring interest on loans. It cost me around $440.00 according to the lawsuit. AG settled for nearly a 100 million or so and when it was all said and done, and mind you there were only about 2,000 plaintiffs, I got a check for, and I kid you not, $0.27.

Ouch!

Bet you felt great taking that down to the bank!

So I guess in the States they don't have those lovely little laws limiting the ammount lawyers can charge to a percentage of the total claim? You should look into getting one of those, they're dead handy.

Atrocities · #28 November 9th, 2005, 09:31 PM

I really believe that any licenses/agreements should be published at the place of sale PRIOR to purchas so that the buyer has an adiquite prepurchase chance review and decline the said licenses. Furthermore I believe that if you decline the license or agreement while installing the software the software should still be installed. Refusing to agree to an agreement or license after you bought the product is kinda stupid in my opinion. Afterall you did buy it without knowning there was such a license therefore you should have the right to say no to it and still be able to install the software you purchased.

AgentZero · #29 November 9th, 2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
I really believe that any licenses/agreements should be published at the place of sale PRIOR to purchas so that the buyer has an adiquite prepurchase chance review and decline the said licenses. Furthermore I believe that if you decline the license or agreement while installing the software the software should still be installed. Refusing to agree to an agreement or license after you bought the product is kinda stupid in my opinion. Afterall you did buy it without knowning there was such a license therefore you should have the right to say no to it and still be able to install the software you purchased.

Well, I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that you should be able to decline the EULA, and still install it, but if you read the EULA and don't agree to it, then you can chose not to install it, then do whatever things you wanted to that the EULA prohibts (like archival copies), and then install the software afterwards, agreeing to the EULA since you've already done all the stuff it says you can't.

JAFisher44 · #30 November 10th, 2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

99% of all of the funds won in 99% of all class action lawsuits that are won or are settled end up going the trial lawyers.

American General Finance was once sued for improperly figuring interest on loans. It cost me around $440.00 according to the lawsuit. AG settled for nearly a 100 million or so and when it was all said and done, and mind you there were only about 2,000 plaintiffs, I got a check for, and I kid you not, $0.27.

The real ***** of this is that the bank will just turn around and charge its account holders this money in interest on future loans, fees, etc. So really what happened is that lawyers screwed the very same people it claimed to want to help twice, once when they tricked them into screwing themselves out of 100 million, and a second time when they didnt pay out a fair settlement on the class action.