Actually no, you never have agreed to a license, you purchased a box of
software. Interesting is it not? Now the shrink wrapped software vendors
would like you to believe that you are executing a contract but you are
not and that has been held up in a court of law.
When I purchase a cell phone at a reduced price, I sign a contract that
requires me to do something in return for the phone. That
contract/license is binding because I knew in advance and executed the
contract/license.
Why is this an important point? If you had to sign a contract before
purchasing a box of software how many people would actually stand for
the terms in the contract, almost none of them. So software manufactures
attempt to force you to agree to terms without actually seeing them
which is not binding in the US. Currently this is in the court systems
are I write this. Microsoft and others are terrified that this will get
become case law, when it does (it is already on the books, just software
vendors have ignored the law for decades and are attempting to use the
length of time to say it "see it must be this way, we have always done
it this way so it is") the concept of a license goes out the door and
the first sale doctrine applies which is good for you and very bad for
them. Copyright still applies but in a much less restrictive way since
you are the "owner" of the software" not a licensee of the vendor and
the vendor "sold" you a single copy of the software and did not license
it.
Interesting, very interesting........
Cheers,
Davidm
On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 09:48,
daz@undertaker.homeip.net wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Derek Neighbors wrote:
>
> > > nah. Ill call it what it is. theft. If somebody is selling something
> > > and I take that something without paying for it, that is theft. it does
> > > not matter what it is. i.e. if I use my friends copy of WinXP on my
> > > box without paying for it, its theft. If I get permission from MS to
> > > do this, it is no longer theft because they gave it to me.
> >
> > No its not.
> >
> > Example: Say I own Windows 95. I have the disk, I install it on a second
> > computer. I have violated copyright. Are you going to argue that I have
> > stolen something? Virtually you are saying that you want to prosecute
> > yourself for stealing from yourself. Which just doesnt make sense.
>
> Lets say you talk to the gm of a car dealership. They give you a legal
> document that says you can take 1 car off the lot for $x. You take 2.
> theft. When you purchase the software, you are agreeing to the terms of
> the license. Generally thats one install per. (of course diff. softwares
> have diff. licenses). the agreement gives parameters to which you can use
> the software. how many installs. If you want more, buy more. If not, you
> are stealing.
>
> I dont agree with the licensing of most commercial products (software,
> anyway), therefore, I do no buy them. I also do not use them. I find
> alternative means to do what I need to get done.
>
> >
> > MOST violations are not someone, buying an "illegal" copy. Rather it is
> > one person using a "legal" copy multiple times for themselves (or their
> > business). Legally theft and copyright infringement are different things,
> > thus we need to discuss them as different things.
> >
>
> whats the difference between buying an 'illegal' copy and not buying a
> 'legal' copy or using a copy not legally obtained? either way you are
> using a product you have no right to use. I cannnot go to a car dealership,
> take a car, and just say "i just didnt legally obtain it" as my defense.
>
>
> again, not the best metaphores, but good enough.
>
> David
>
> > -Derek
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
--
David IS Mandala
gpg fingerprint 8932 E7EF CCF5 1B8C 1B5C A92E C678 795E 45B2 D952
Phoenix, AZ (480) 460-7546 HP, (602) 741-1363 CP
http://www.them.com/~davidm/
(text/plain)