On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
> M$ has to start by alleging a breach of contract. So the question
> then becomes what provision is so onerous that a licensee has no
> choice but to violate it?
No, that's not the case at all. Copyright gives you certain rights
to control your work, but not absolute rights. If I write a book, I
can legally force someone to pay me for the right to read my book.
But I cannot add a restriction that the book only be read in natural
sunlight, and that reading it using electrically-generated light
sources is a violation of their license to read the book. If I write
a hit song, I can charge you for a copy of the song, but I can't add
a restriction that prohibits you from humming the catchy melody.
The EULA issues fall into this realm. They are claiming rights that
they simply do not have, but no one dares to risk the financial
burden of challenging them, since justice has very little to do with
who is right, but rather who can afford the best lawyers for the
longest period.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
