Perhaps you should tell that to the DA's and cities attempting to sue gun manufactures. It seems the same logic should apply. However one is a gun and one is a camera. Then again the same logic applies...
Scott Loveless wrote: > William Robb wrote: > >> I doubt very much if it is enforcable. >> >> http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4326/camera-test-fujifilm-finepix-is-1-a-narrowly-defined-user-licensing-agreement-page2.html >> >> > This is probably more of a CYA thing on Fuji's part. As far as I'm > concerned, if I buy one it's mine. What I do with it is none of Fuji's > business. If I break the law or cause someone harm with it, then either > the State or the victim or both can attempt to exact some sort of > retribution. Fuji has this nonsense in their EULA so that if I use the > IR capabilities of their "police" camera to cause harm to someone else, > it becomes difficult for me to point a blaming finger at Fuji. > > -- I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world -- Anonymous -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
