I totally agree that there is a lot of sleaze, and worse, in the business world nowadays. But the fact that I try not to be sleazy doesn't let me off the hook, as far as consequences are concerned. The maxim of the law is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." So if I violate a EULA in ignorance, it would make no difference in court whether I did it in ignorance or if I indulged in deliberate piracy (which, of course, the corporation would claim). Certainly big companies are not merciful when they go after small fry like us, if they think we have trampled on their property rights. And even if you're totally in the clear and not liable, if you get sued, you lose, because of lawyers' fees, time spent in court, etc. Fortunately, most of us small fry are pretty much invisible--I don't know if a discussion on this list makes us less invisible.
Similarly, some of the big software companies (I think you know who I'm talking about) have gone to a lot of trouble to make themselves a monopoly for certain functions, buying out or destroying all potential rivals and then using their monopoly power to the hilt to charge profits far above those that a truly free market would allow; and imposing onerous conditions that would send the public racing to the nearest competitor--if there were a nearest competitor. In a lot of instances, you pretty much have to use their product if you want full personhood in the modern world. Think I'm exaggerating? Some essential government websites--and job application forms on other websites--ONLY work with Windows. Example: When I applied for a job at Montgomery College, where I was taking graphics courses on Macs, I couldn't use my Mac, or the classroom Macs, to apply. It's discouraging when government entities and businesses collude in reinforcing a corporation's monopoly power. Is this really moral? You could die from tainted toothpaste, but is anybody going to perish if you use Windows in a slightly different manner that the corporation wants you to? That having been said, I do have legal copies of Windows and of Office software to go with it. I just hope that keeps me in the clear. --Constance Warner >No, I don't violate EULA's, at least not consciously. But with all that >legal and technical gobbledygook, I can't ever be 100% sure. Good point. But alas, that's not what we are discussing. The topic of the moment is deliberately violating specific terms of an EULA by purchasing the low-cost version of a product and using it in a way that the EULA only allows for the more-expensive version of the product. I'm sad to see us at such a moral low. *********** ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
