David Boles wrote:
It says that you can use the *whole* program. Nowhere does it say that you can pick it a part and use the parts.
Vendors will say anything they think they can get away with. There was a time when automobile vendors insisted you had to use their own brand of replacement spark plugs or your warranty would be invalid. However the US legislation occasionally flirts with consumer protection laws at times when enough of the corrupt special interest lobbiests and the politicians they bribe have been caught and jailed. Some of those laws are still on the books and still give the purchaser some rights and the vendors some responsibilites they can't legally disclaim, and they do not equate a EULA with a contract. And of course, some other countries are a bit more sensible about individual rights all of the time.
The same applies to music CDs. You did not buy the music you bought the CD which gives you a license to *play* the music. Only play the music.
Yes, they say that, but legally regardless of what they say you do have the right to make backup copies for yourself and to copy onto devices as necessary to play it. And they make vastly more money than they would if people only played music at the times/places when they could deal with the hassle of sorting through a mountain of plastic stuff to find a song.
You can not legally copy the music and then sell or give it away. Why? Because you own the CD not the contents.
Yes, copyright laws control this, not whatever claims the vendor happens to make about what you can or can't do with a product you buy.
Same applies to movies. You bought the DVD not the movie.
There's currently a slight difference here in that reading a movie DVD may require software covered by the DCMA but that's a somewhat different issue. But nobody is talking about redistributing copyrighted content here. We are talking about using a product that you purchased along with the rights to use it.
But you still have not read a EULA have you? Arguing from ignorance is a fools tast.
They aren't contracts, and your rights are controlled by laws, not bits of paper that you find after opening the package containing your product.
So you are telling me that all of the software companies, all of their corporate lawyers, the courts, and all world are all wrong? And that you are right?
Courts have gone both ways so it is clearly wrong to assume that the vendor's claims are always valid. The links I posted aren't the only ones where EULA claims were invalidated.
IMHO - You have the "extremely one-sided view" here. You against the world are kinda' steep odds Les.
Just trying to keep things in balance... I would agree that the present US administration and the courts it has appointed probably does not make the best time/place to challenge wealthy special interests, but that era is likely just about over.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
