[NTLK] h*cks, kr*ks, SN

[Ken Whitcomb]

Joe,
When they're contrary to law yes. So while a given EULA may apply in  
one area, it might not in another if it is contrary to law there. You  
know, state's rights and all...each is entitled to make law as they  
see fit (at least in the U.S.). And sometimes companies have put  
language in their EULA that is unacceptable to countries or groups of  
countries (read: MS in Europe)
See, even companies are not above the law!!!  ;)
ken

On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:12 PM, reilly001os at aol.com wrote:

> Ken,
> EULA's have been found to be not binding many times... (had to play  
> devils advocate on that one) :-D
>
> Joe Reilly
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Whitcomb <ken at imageguild.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:31:09
> To: <newtontalk at newtontalk.net>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] h*cks, kr*ks, SN
>
> This discussion touches on an interesting issue. If I can do
> something, does that mean I may do that thing?
>
> <soapbox>
>
> When two parties engage in commerce, they are both required to abide
> by the law the prevails where the transaction occurs. In instances
> where that occurs in two locations, say via mail order, phone, or
> internet transactions, they may be required to abide by the law that
> prevails in each of multiple locations.
>
> If the goods or services exchanged in the transaction involve
> copyright protection, both parties are expected (by law) to abided by
> that protection, and perhaps other requirements that would be spelled
> out in an End User License Agreement (EULA), which is more a matter of
> contract than copyright protection. In other words, if you open it, or
> install it, or use it for more than X days, or use it at all as the
> case may be, you implicitly agree to the terms. The end user is only
> permitted to use the goods if they agree to the terms.
>
> So the challenge to whether or not people are required to obey the law
> is a non-issue. Just because, as the saying goes "In Jersey anything's
> legal, as long as you don't get caught", I can get away with a
> particular activity without penalty or conviction, doesn't mean that
> it's acceptable behavior.
>
> So when it comes to copyrighted material such as software, there are
> several ways that one can legally use it and they include:
>
> writing the code yourself
> purchasing a license (from the copyright holder or an end user that
> owns a license and will forfeit their rights to use it when they sell
> it to you)
> being given a license from the copyright holder
> purchasing the copyrights from the copyright holder
> the copyrighted material being released into the public domain either
> by act or by default (which in the U.S. is a certain number of years
> following the death of the creator)
>
> Legal use does not include:
>
> using a serial code or license that violates the copyright or terms of
> the EULA
> reverse engineering a code or license
> using other software to modify the code to allow unlicensed use
>
> If the law of the land where either or both parties to the transaction
> have conditions similar to these in effect, then both parties are
> bound to them, regardless of their emotional disposition to them.
>
> Lastly, I am noticing a trend here that while not new, is disturbingly
> more common in it's presence here, and that is an attitude of
> entitlement to a good or service, regardless of any other conditions
> such as honoring laws or terms of contracts, or the consent of the
> copyright holder. All analogies aside, just because I want something,
> doesn't mean that I'm entitled to it, regardless of my ability to gain
> the cooperation and consent of the copyright holder.
>
> So if you are going to use a piece of software without adhering to
> laws or contracts, admit that your actions are criminal and stop
> rationalizing and making excuses for your behavior. Some people live
> their lives without regard for others, that's their choice whether
> they're anarchists, criminals, or sociopaths (there probably others,
> but these three will do). Our actions define us, not our words,
> rationalizations, or intents.
>
> </soapbox>
>
> Ken
>
> ====================================================================
> The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> ====================================================================
>
> ====================================================================
> The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://newtontalk.net/
> The Official Newton FAQ     - http://splorp.com/newton/faq/
> The Newton Glossary         - http://splorp.com/newton/glossary/
> WikiWikiNewt                - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
> ====================================================================