Installing Windows XP pro with the same cd key on two different computers

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: jpthomas

By the way, EULA's do not hold up in court. When I buy software, it's mine. I did not sign a contract *before purchase* that defines how I'm allowed to use it.

Wrong!

Do a quick search on Lexis and you can pull up tons of cases dealing with this exact issue. Like this case, decided in 2002. And I quote:

Moore v. Microsoft Corp., 293 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div., 2002) <-- this is the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate division.

"We agree with the Supreme Court that the End-User License Agreement (hereinafter the EULA) contained in the defendant's software program is a validly binding contract between the parties which bars the plaintiff's claims (see Brower v Gateway 2000, 246 AD2d 246). The terms of the EULA were prominently displayed on the program user's computer screen before the software could be installed. Moreover, the program's [***2] user was required to indicate assent to the EULA by clicking on the "I agree" icon before proceeding with the download of the software. Thus, the defendant offered a contract that the plaintiff accepted by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. As a result, the plaintiff's claims are barred by the clear disclaimers, waivers of liability, and limitations of remedies contained in the EULA."

pwned!

 

[Ichinisan]

Courtrooms are comprised of human beings; who make mistakes and (sometimes) incorrect decisions. The software industry wants you to buy the software, and then present you with additional rules and restrictions after the purchase. That is unethical and could surely be contested. I suppose *now* is the time to put an end to EULA's and set a new legal precedent before they get out of hand.

 

[Smilin]

They actually want you to know and abide by their restrictions before the purchase but there isn't really a practical way to do it and still be able to let you buy a "box on a shelf". They do take steps to ensure you can get a full refund if you don't agree. If they didn't I could certainly see it changing this whole debate.

I think everyone keeps ignoring the fact that you don't *own* the software you purchase. You are simply getting a license to use it from the owner. They can set whatever terms and conditions they want. If it's something outrageous then so be it. You are always welcome to decline the terms and not use the license.

What is so unethical about that? Sure you can contest it. You can contest anything you want, even the law of gravity. I just wouldn't recommend contesting a license you are in violation of any more than I would recommend contesting the law of gravity from the top of a tall cliff.


I think *now* is the time to put this stupid thread to rest.

 

[Ichinisan]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You cannot use something that is copyrighted without the express consent of the owner of the copyright. It's a simple fact.

I most certainly *can* use it. If I paid for it legally, then I have consent to use it within the limitations of the law. I cannot redistribute the material or display it publicly without the copyright owner's consent. The copyright simply gives the owner exclusive sale and distribution rights because they deserve to profit exclusively from their intellecutal property.

Get it? Software is no different from other media, such as print or movies.

See how the wireless phone industry works? Because Microsoft chooses how to distribute their software, they could easily work out a method to legally and ethically bind customers to additional restrictions. However, they choose to lure buyers by selling it in a store with a price tag and a pretty box. Of course they make more money by selling Windows XP at the local WalMart, but they lose the right to legitimately enforce their additional restrictions. I actually hope that one day I end up in court "defending" myself from Microsoft. Time to put Microsoft on the defensive

EULA's are unethical and illegal, even if there are instances of flawed legal decisions.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You cannot use something that is copyrighted without the express consent of the owner of the copyright. It's a simple fact.

I most certainly *can* use it. If I paid for it legally, then I have consent to use it within the limitations of the law.

BZZZZZT.

You can't use it without the owner's consent.

The owner in your case happened to give you consent in exchange for your money.

I actually hope that one day I end up in court "defending" myself from Microsoft

I hope you do too.

 

[Ichinisan]

Originally posted by: Smilin
BZZZZZT.

You can't use it without the owner's consent.

The owner in your case happened to give you consent in exchange for your money.

That is *precisely* what I said.

Change "BZZZZT" to "DING DING DING!"

Thank you.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: Smilin
BZZZZZT.

You can't use it without the owner's consent.

The owner in your case happened to give you consent in exchange for your money.

That is *precisely* what I said.

Change "BZZZZT" to "DING DING DING!"

Thank you.

*sigh*

I'm afraid you're ignoring that other fact again. His consent was conditional. The details are outlined in the EULA.

 

[Smilin]

We will go in circles on this forever and ever.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin
We will go in circles on this forever and ever.

This is why I prefer public domain and BSD licensed software. Public domain is owned by everyone, and the BSD license is so damn easy to read it probably makes lawyers cry.

 

[Ichinisan]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: Smilin
BZZZZZT.

You can't use it without the owner's consent.

The owner in your case happened to give you consent in exchange for your money.

That is *precisely* what I said.

Change "BZZZZT" to "DING DING DING!"

Thank you.

*sigh*

I'm afraid you're ignoring that other fact again. His consent was conditional. The details are outlined in the EULA.

Did I not address the legitimacy of these after-the-fact conditions ("restrictions")?

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You cannot use something that is copyrighted without the express consent of the owner of the copyright. It's a simple fact.

I most certainly *can* use it. If I paid for it legally, then I have consent to use it within the limitations of the law. I cannot redistribute the material or display it publicly without the copyright owner's consent. The copyright simply gives the owner exclusive sale and distribution rights because they deserve to profit exclusively from their intellecutal property.

Get it? Software is no different from other media, such as print or movies.

See how the wireless phone industry works? Because Microsoft chooses how to distribute their software, they could easily work out a method to legally and ethically bind customers to additional restrictions. However, they choose to lure buyers by selling it in a store with a price tag and a pretty box. Of course they make more money by selling Windows XP at the local WalMart, but they lose the right to legitimately enforce their additional restrictions. I actually hope that one day I end up in court "defending" myself from Microsoft. Time to put Microsoft on the defensive

EULA's are unethical and illegal, even if there are instances of flawed legal decisions.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: Smilin
BZZZZZT.

You can't use it without the owner's consent.

The owner in your case happened to give you consent in exchange for your money.

That is *precisely* what I said.

Change "BZZZZT" to "DING DING DING!"

Thank you.

*sigh*

I'm afraid you're ignoring that other fact again. His consent was conditional. The details are outlined in the EULA.

Did I not address the legitimacy of these after-the-fact conditions ("restrictions")?

You know you can view the EULAs before you buy Microsoft software right?

I think the best option here is all of us agreeing to disagree, and moving on.

 

[McMadman]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: McMadman
I'd have to say that my biggest "fear" about product activation will be when the next "latest and greatest" os comes along. Will microsoft refuse to activate an older install of xp in favor of forcing the user to upgrade to the newest version.

No, they won't. That's a pretty nasty "fear" of yours. Where did you pick that up from?

XP will simply follow the cycle of extended support only then no support.

I know it is rather unfounded, it's just a possibility of what could happen.

I would at least hope/expect them to keep handling activations until after the extended support goes away, but we can only see what happens in the future as far as XP and its popularity goes. 98/ME support was extended due to it still having a lot of users, the same could happen with XP/2K.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: McMadman

I know it is rather unfounded, it's just a possibility of what could happen.

I would at least hope/expect them to keep handling activations until after the extended support goes away, but we can only see what happens in the future as far as XP and its popularity goes. 98/ME support was extended due to it still having a lot of users, the same could happen with XP/2K.

The gap between longhorn and XP is going to be much greater than the gap between xp and 2k. There is less of a chance that support will be extended but Microsoft is going to listen to customer concerns on this.

As for causing XP to no longer activate after a certain period to force people to upgrade: not going to happen. That would legally be about the same as Ford coming by to pickup your car with a tow truck after 10 years so you would have to buy a new Ford. :Q

 

[Smilin]

I just saw over at slashdot that it looks like some guys ended up in court after violating a EULA (among other things). They even tried all the same arguments that you guys did. Wanna guess what happened?


Here, I copied some juicy bits from the judgement for ya...


First they tried saying the EULA was a violation of copywrite law
States may not enact copyright protection that conflicts with federal law.

Defendants contend that the EULAs and TOU in this case concern areas protected by the Copyright Act. Defendants assert that the Copyright Act preempts the state law of contracts and therefore plaintiffs' state law contract claim is preempted by the Copyright Act.

The contractual restriction on use of the programs constitutes an extra element that makes this cause of action qualitatively different from one for copyright.? Id. at 433. Therefore, the Court finds that the EULA and TOU are not statutorily preempted by the Copyright Act.



Then they tried the good old "first sale doctrine" crap.
The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC. First, the defendants did not purchase the Blizzard software, rather they purchased a license for the software. A sale consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2-106(1) (2000). When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the software.(Funny, didn't I just say that?) :roll: Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this term.

"The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendants do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore, the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here."



Then they try the "contract of adhesion" crap.
Next, the defendants argue that even if a contract was formed, it was a contract of adhesion and is therefore unenforceable. Defendants argue that the contract is adhesive because it fails to square with the reasonable expectations of the parties, as no average member of the public would expect to pay $49.99 for a game and then be unable to use it when he or she gets home. Defendants also argue that no reasonable person would expect to be barred from installing the game he just bought unless he or she is forced to comply with an EULA

The defendants also had access for up to thirty days to read over the EULA and decide if they wanted to adhere to its terms or return the games. Defendants had the same option in obtaining access to Battle.net. Therefore, the Court finds that the licensing agreements were not procedurally unconscionable.



Then comes "fair use".
The defendants claim that even if the EULA and TOU are enforceable under state law, they are unenforceable because they prohibit the fair use of the Blizzard software.

The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement.


Hey UncleX. Since I didn't read your windbag post earlier now would be a good time for paybacks if you wanted. (ie "Whuuut Evvvaaar")

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Ok, Halliburton then. Unless you want to stop paying taxes of course

Speaking of taxes, why does MS demand more infrastructure support from the taxpayers of the state of Washington, including more support for education, when they channel the majority of their revenue to an out-of-state Nevada-based "shell corporation" to avoid paying taxes in the state of WA?

Complete, utter, corporate hypocracy and greed. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, and demanding a second helping besides.

link

PS. Speaking of haliburton and Enron... I'll try to dig up that article describing how MS's financial arrangements, including how they handle their stock options, amount to essentially a wall-street pyramid-scheme. So an Enron-like crash in MS's future, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: McMadman
I'd have to say that my biggest "fear" about product activation will be when the next "latest and greatest" os comes along. Will microsoft refuse to activate an older install of xp in favor of forcing the user to upgrade to the newest version.

If examples of other company's software with "activation" or other DRM-like schemes can be used as an example, then I would say that the answer is "most certainly" you can expect that. Nothing like being able to *force* a user to upgrade, instead of just entice them with mostly-false promises anymore.

But until it actually happens (MS refuses activation for an "unsupported" but legally-purchased product), then we won't know. Perhaps MS will have some newly-purchased laws on the books that relieve them of any accusations of fraud or wrongdoing for doing so.

(If the UCTIA (sp?) had passed, then MS would have already been in the clear, as that was one of the features of that attempt at purchased legislation that they wanted implemented, the ability to "shut down" customer's software, without the customer having any recourse towards them.)

Unless they release a simple patch to disable the need for activation, after it slips out of the supported lifetime. That would be interesting, MS releasing their own "product activation crack". Not totally out of the possibility either, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
He's talking about a dual boot. One machine and only one install can run at a time, EVER.

Not with some form of virtual-machine/PC software installed. You could have two installations, and then mount/execute one of those inside a virtual machine running as an app on top of the other OS.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You cannot use something that is copyrighted without the express consent of the owner of the copyright. It's a simple fact.

Prove it. Seriously.

I think you're quite wrong here.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I believe in limits to the length of copyrights, but I also think people should conform to the requirements of the copyright holder.

Even when those "requirements", are expressed in a manner that is not legally binding?

"By opening this seal, and using this software, you, the licensee, agree to pray in the direction of Redmond, WA, at least 4 times a day, all while repeatedly chanting, 'BillG is great!' in a manner audible to all persons that may be nearby."

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think corporations should be viewed the same as people, and they should not be able to own a copyright (unless the limit was shorter for corporations).

That much I agree with. Corporations should clearly be seen as subservient and "lesser" beings than ordinary natural humans. Otherwise, we're all going to be in trouble in the end.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Like I've said before, I own several copyrights (we all do really), and I like the fact that people should adhere to the rules I have for the use of my works.

Ah! But are those "rules" specified by law?

And if they are not directly specified by law, then how are they legally-enforcable? You can't just dictate "the law" to users on a whim, you know. The only other legally-enforcable mechanism is a private contract, and that contract has to be explicitly agreed upon by *both* parties.

An "assumption" by the retailer (as Smilin tried to argue), holds no legal force of law over me.

If MS, or any other copyright holder, wants to *legally* enforce restrictions upon the licensee, that are not explicitly restricted already *by law*, then they need to force the user (purchaser) to sign a contract at the point of sale, before the money changes hands. They cannot attempt to enforce terms after the sale, that were not expressly agree to by both parties at the time of sale.

Which is precisely why (shrink-wrap) EULAs are legally invalid.

Arguements that the EULA text is available to read prior to the sale, through some out-of-band channel, are irrelevant in that they don't modify the terms of the sale. Unless they are *part of the terms of the sale*, they are not enforcable. Forcing the user to apply a "mechanical action" (I like that term, thanks), to hit "F8" to "agree" to the terms, after the sale has already transpired, holds no force of (contract) law, because those terms were not mutually agreed to *at the time of the sale*.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I dispise the GPL. It's too limitting. But it's better than many alternatives.

No offense n0c, but if you spent some time reading it, you might understand copyright law a little better, including the surprising fact that it doesn't give the copyright holder blanket rights to dictate the user's use of the copyrighted materials.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jpthomas
It's pretty clear that not many in this thread actually know anything about the law. To determine if a EULA does form a valid contract, you need to look at the LAW. It doesn't matter if you "don't like EULA's" or "didn't sign anything" or "didn't read the license agreement."

By the way, EULA's do not hold up in court. When I buy software, it's mine. I did not sign a contract *before purchase* that defines how I'm allowed to use it.

Wrong!

Do a quick search on Lexis and you can pull up tons of cases dealing with this exact issue. Like this case, decided in 2002. And I quote:

Moore v. Microsoft Corp., 293 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div., 2002) <-- this is the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate division.

"We agree with the Supreme Court that the End-User License Agreement (hereinafter the EULA) contained in the defendant's software program is a validly binding contract between the parties which bars the plaintiff's claims (see Brower v Gateway 2000, 246 AD2d 246). The terms of the EULA were prominently displayed on the program user's computer screen before the software could be installed. Moreover, the program's [***2] user was required to indicate assent to the EULA by clicking on the "I agree" icon before proceeding with the download of the software. Thus, the defendant offered a contract that the plaintiff accepted by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. As a result, the plaintiff's claims are barred by the clear disclaimers, waivers of liability, and limitations of remedies contained in the EULA."

That's interesting, I shall have to study that a bit more. Unfortunately, Microsoft is a very special case in this country, a company that appears, to be above the law. They are a convicted abusive predatory monopolist, and yet they seemingly haven't been punished at all. Thus far they have manange to abuse the law in many ways, and get away with it. "Windows", for example, is a generic term and is therefore not trademarkable. "Microsoft Windows", on the other hand, is specific enough to be trademarkable. But I guess when you become truely rich and powerful, the law is no longer an obstacle.

Also, is that case about the purchaser attempting to use the software, or attempting to sue Microsoft for some sort of damages over something? A "disclaimer of liability" is just that - a disclaimer, and all that really has to be proved is that the disclaimer was shown to the user. That doesn't make it a binding contract though, although that quoted text seems to indicate that the court saw it as such. I'm not 100% on legal terminology, but do they refer to a legally-valid disclaimer as a "contract" as well? That would be useful to know in this instance to discern the meaning of the language used.

Originally posted by: jpthomas
How bout another case, just for fun:

Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Gulf Coast Software, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20026 (D. Va., 2000)

"The court finds that Phoenix's acceptance of the software installations, without complaint or rejection, constitutes acquiescence in the terms of the license agreements. Since these are the only agreements to which VMS is a party, Phoenix is bound by the arbitration provisions."

Is that about a shrink-wrap EULA, or a more conventional explicitly-agreed-to software license dispute?

Originally posted by: jpthomas

By reading this message you signify your agreement to pay me $100,000 to read it, and $100,000 per second whenever you think about what I've said.

This is definately NOT a contract!! This would fail due to unconsionability. A contract is procedurally unconscionable if it involves an ?unfair surprise,? where the party who drafts the contract includes a term having reason to know that the term does not accord with the other party?s fair expectations.

You don't consider being presented with hidden terms, that are restrictions on my legal rights, being shown to me only *after* I purchased something, and yet being *forced* to click a button (no matter what text is shown) in order to *properly use what I have already paid for*, an "unfair surprise"? I certainly do.

Thanks for at least posting something remotely factual in support of that position, something that everyone else seems to have failed to do.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
They actually want you to know and abide by their restrictions before the purchase but there isn't really a practical way to do it and still be able to let you buy a "box on a shelf". They do take steps to ensure you can get a full refund if you don't agree. If they didn't I could certainly see it changing this whole debate.

Exactly. Microsoft (and other large commercial software publishers) want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to be able to have a valid, and legally-enforcable means of restricting end-users rights in manners that go far beyond what the statutory law provides, in order to enhance their revenues, but they don't want to encumber the customer with a process that might dissuade them from executing the software purchase because of the added inconvenience of signing a contract.

Originally posted by: Smilin
I think everyone keeps ignoring the fact that you don't *own* the software you purchase. You are simply getting a license to use it from the owner.

Right, but you DO own the *license*, which grants you the right, under copyright law, to have a tangible, fixed, copy of the copyrighted work. Which you then have the right, under law, to privately use.

Originally posted by: Smilin
They can set whatever terms and conditions they want. If it's something outrageous then so be it. You are always welcome to decline the terms and not use the license.

No, you already paid for the license, it's yours. They cannot take that from you, that would be theft. (Speaking of literal property theft here - not copyright infringement.)

If they want to enforce restrictive terms, then they should do so, using legally enforcable means.

Originally posted by: Smilin
What is so unethical about that? Sure you can contest it. You can contest anything you want, even the law of gravity. I just wouldn't recommend contesting a license you are in violation of any more than I would recommend contesting the law of gravity from the top of a tall cliff.

Moderation: -1 (Stupid unrelated analogies)

You don't think contracts of adhesion, enforced by coercion and threats of unlawful harassment via the legal system are unethical?

(Aside from that, almost everything that MS has done in the course of their business has been more-or-less unethical. It's basically par for the course for MS. They even thought that they could fake a deposition video for the DOJ and get away with it. Oh wait, this is MS we're talking about - they did basically get away with it. BillG and his legal team should have been jailed for contempt-of-court, IMHO.)

Originally posted by: Smilin
I think *now* is the time to put this stupid thread to rest.

Only if MS "comes clean" regarding the licensing practices of their software, and stops trying to stomp on everyone else's legal rights, in order to prop up their software monopoly.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You cannot use something that is copyrighted without the express consent of the owner of the copyright. It's a simple fact.

I most certainly *can* use it. If I paid for it legally, then I have consent to use it within the limitations of the law. I cannot redistribute the material or display it publicly without the copyright owner's consent. The copyright simply gives the owner exclusive sale and distribution rights because they deserve to profit exclusively from their intellecutal property.

Get it? Software is no different from other media, such as print or movies.

See how the wireless phone industry works? Because Microsoft chooses how to distribute their software, they could easily work out a method to legally and ethically bind customers to additional restrictions. However, they choose to lure buyers by selling it in a store with a price tag and a pretty box. Of course they make more money by selling Windows XP at the local WalMart, but they lose the right to legitimately enforce their additional restrictions. I actually hope that one day I end up in court "defending" myself from Microsoft. Time to put Microsoft on the defensive

EULA's are unethical and illegal, even if there are instances of flawed legal decisions.

Whew. I'm glad that *somebody* has actually read the copyright laws, and understands their rights.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
I just saw over at slashdot that it looks like some guys ended up in court after violating a EULA (among other things). They even tried all the same arguments that you guys did. Wanna guess what happened? Here, I copied some juicy bits from the judgement for ya...

Link, please?

Originally posted by: Smilin
First they tried saying the EULA was a violation of copywrite law

How is a EULA in violation of copyright law? It's an unlawful adhesion contract.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Then they tried the good old "first sale doctrine" crap.

It's not crap, the much more sane German legal system upheld it. It has also been upheld in the past in the US, for other copyrighted works such as books. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any such support with respect to copyrighted software. But the legal concept is clearly the same, and the works protected under largely the same body of law.

Originally posted by: Smilin
"The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendants do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore, the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here."

Interesting. That is in direct contrast to other decisions that I have read about, regarding books.

When you purchase a book, do you "own" the work? No, you own the book, containing the work, and any reasonable court would also consider you to have an implicit copyright license to the work printed on the pages of that book. But yet, even though you don't "own" the work, they considered the "first sale doctrine" to apply.

My take is that recent decisions made about this lack understand of the legal concept, and that they found that it didn't apply, based on a technicality of terminology, is unfortunate.

Clearly, if the customer paid money, then they must own *something* right? Otherwise the seller, in this case Blizzard, I guess, simply took their money and offered them nothing at all. Isn't that fraud or theft? Clearly, that isn't true either. So what do they own? The license. Not the work itself. But IMHO that doesn't mean that the doctrine doesn't apply.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Then they try the "contract of adhesion" crap.
Next, the defendants argue that even if a contract was formed, it was a contract of adhesion and is therefore unenforceable. Defendants argue that the contract is adhesive because it fails to square with the reasonable expectations of the parties, as no average member of the public would expect to pay $49.99 for a game and then be unable to use it when he or she gets home.

Would you expect to pay $49.99 for a game, and then find out that you were not able to use it when you opened the package? Would that be a reasonable expectation for you? It certainly wouldn't for me.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Defendants also argue that no reasonable person would expect to be barred from installing the game he just bought unless he or she is forced to comply with an EULA

The defendants also had access for up to thirty days to read over the EULA and decide if they wanted to adhere to its terms or return the games. Defendants had the same option in obtaining access to Battle.net. Therefore, the Court finds that the licensing agreements were not procedurally unconscionable.

But this is a different issue then, talking about terms of use for a service. That is a different issue than a shrink-wrap EULA for a single software license purchase transaction.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Then comes "fair use".
The defendants claim that even if the EULA and TOU are enforceable under state law, they are unenforceable because they prohibit the fair use of the Blizzard software.
The defendants in this case waived their "fair use" right to reverse engineer by agreeing to the licensing agreement.

I fail to see how that agreeing to X, automatically implies that I waive right to Y.

I'm curious about the article you quoted, because I remember seeing something about Blizzard trying to use the DMCA to go after someone that reverse-engineered the BattleNet protocol and write their own server. Was that the same issue that you quoted? Because I didn't see anything about the DMCA mentioned at all. It's pretty well-known that both Blizzard and Valve/VU have used the DMCA to aggressively and IMHO unlawfully "go after" some people. (Valve attempting to use DMCA threads to silence the free speech of others, that might publish information in flaws in their game engine and protocols that might allow others to cheat.) Last time I checked, this was America, and that was legal. Valve has a number of people on staff that are european though, and they don't believe in freedom of speech over there, so I could see where some of their (unsupported by law) motivation for issuing those threats comes from. Look at the very recent spat between FutureMark of Finland, and HardOCP, for another example. Guess what, this is America, not Finland. Too bad for FM and their theatened libel claims.

In any case, thanks for posting that. Reading between the lines, it could be assumed that when attempting to set a precedent, it might be unwise to annoy the judge by changing legal tacts multiple times mid-stream. Then again, I'm not sure who was the plaintiff and defendant there.

Edit: fixed quote nesting

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I dispise the GPL. It's too limitting. But it's better than many alternatives.

No offense n0c, but if you spent some time reading it, you might understand copyright law a little better, including the surprising fact that it doesn't give the copyright holder blanket rights to dictate the user's use of the copyrighted materials.

I have read it. Several times. It gives the user not-so-explicit instructions with what they can do with the software. The BSD license is even better, it explains explicitly what a user can do with the source code. And you have to agree to the terms to use the software, whether you sign something or not.

 

[bsobel]

Prove it. Seriously.
I think you're quite wrong here.

There is a surprise Seriously tho, some of us get thread notifications to mobile devices. Couldn't you have left say one answer instead of a the zillion replies you generated? Be gentle to us mobile folks....

Speaking of taxes, why does MS demand more infrastructure support from the taxpayers of the state of Washington, including more support for education, when they channel the majority of their revenue to an out-of-state Nevada-based "shell corporation" to avoid paying taxes in the state of WA?
Complete, utter, corporate hypocracy and greed. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, and demanding a second helping besides.
link
PS. Speaking of haliburton and Enron... I'll try to dig up that article describing how MS's financial arrangements, including how they handle their stock options, amount to essentially a wall-street pyramid-scheme. So an Enron-like crash in MS's future, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Your welcome to start a thread in P&amp;N, but short of that, this is the wrong forum...

Bill