At 7:46 pm +0100 9/4/99, Chris White wrote: >> Most of the things you'll find in the average software license agreement >> are unenforcable in the UK. [...] >>they are not allowed to reduce the >> consumer's rights below a certain minimum threshold as defined by UK law. > >If you agree to a aggreement of any kind , (even if printed on back of >software) you are bound by that aggreement.
Depends on the circumstances. I don't think UK law courts will accept any sort of "implicit" agreement. For a start, you need to have installed and tested the software for a while before you can be certain that the software correctly performs the required functions. On the safe side, a contract which actually reduces the consumer's rights would have to be signed before it would become legally binding. >>They might therefore >> try to argue that by doing any of this you are in breach of your >agreement, >> but since you haven't signed anything there's no danger there either. > >You are only alloud to use the item in the manner that it was desgined for , >there is a consumer law from 1971 that states QUOTE - " You are entitled to >a full refund , if said item does not perform the task that it was original >purchase to do" , Hang about just a minute.... that law obliges the software company to guarantee that the program will do the job it was designed to do. It places no restrictions whatsoever on the consumer, who can try and get the software to do whatever he likes. > So you should never have to reverse-engineer/modify or >copy as if it fails in work or opertate as expected you just get your cash >back? I'm not sure I see what point you're making here. If I'd paid for a program which simply didn't do its job, I would complain until I got my money back. If the program mostly worked, but one little bit needed tweaking and the programmers were unwilling to do that, I might fix it if it were within my ability to do so. >> A major distinction between the UK and the US, is that when a UK consumer >> buys a piece of software, he owns that copy of the program - wheras a US >> consumer merely owns a license to use that software (under just about >> whatever terms the software producer sees fit). > >MR MICKEYSOFT , here would agree as his EULA , states this . But as a >consumer you must use the product only as it has been sold to you and in the >form it was sold to you. This is what Mr Mickeysoft would like you to believe, but if the EULA is unenforcable in a UK court - as most of them are - then I am not bound by that particular agreement. >Big for instance , if you modfied a piece of >software and then sold you machine (With all software as required by law) , >then said modified software cause damage to machine who is liable? What exactly do you mean? I know of no such law, that requires me to bundle software if I sell my computer. If I did include software, I'd have to include the licenses (many of which, incidentally, try to claim to be non-transferable, and that is also not allowed in the UK) and not keep any copies myself, but that is another issue entirely. If I did sell a machine including a modified program, then I would be distributing a modified copy and that would be breaking UK law. >> > Having a backup of a disk thats not used for illegal >> >purposes , is like have a gun and NEVER thinks of firing it (Pointless) >> >> Invalid analogy. You've never ever had a corrupted disk then? > >Yes i have and i have got a Full Replacement from the Publisher , Take my >current cause , Roller Coaster Tycoon has a BIG problem with Daylight saving >time , and I am supposed to DLOAD/Buy a Mag with fix on it , But I will not >and have sent back to Publisher for a Correct Version , as its fawed. You're attacking the wrong question. Your copy of RCT was flawed, the software itself contained bugs, and the publisher is responsible for providing a working copy. A backup doesn't come into play here, because it would contain the same software, and therefore the same bugs. Let's say you buy a fully working copy of RCT. What would happen, in three year's time, if you accidentally scratched that CD, and it no longer loaded? The publisher, if they were even still in business, would be unlikely to see it as their problem and would almost certainly not provide you with a free replacement. If you wanted to play the game again, you'd probably have to buy another copy unless you'd previously made a backup, in which case there wouldn't be a problem. >>Sometimes I will remove >>protection, like the one on SamPaint which just became tedious after >> a while (and actually only took me about 90 seconds to remove). > >Then if SAY, some else took a copy of you unprotect version without out your >consent you have help reduce money going to the author This is true, and the publisher would in that event probably have a good case against me for negligence. I should take more care to ensure that the modifications are not distributed, because the distribution of the modifications is illegal. However, actually making the modifications in the first place, is certainly not. Andrew -- | Andrew Collier | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Talk sense to a | Part 2 NatSci | http://carou.sel.cam.ac.uk/ | fool and he +----------------+-----------------------------+ calls you foolish | Selwyn College Student Computer Support Team | -- Euripides
