Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

Chad Perrin perrin at apotheon.com
Sun Sep 21 10:35:50 MDT 2008


On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 09:01:29AM -0600, Brian Wood wrote:
> 
> The legalty and/or the enforceability of "shrink wrap" licenses is
> questionable, and in at least one case a court has decided against them:
> 
> http://www.freibrun.com/articles/articl22.htm
> 
> A couple of states tried to "help" the software industry by enacting
> laws to make S/W licenses enforceable, both efforts failed:
> 
> http://library.findlaw.com/1994/Jun/1/130938.html
> 
> The mere fact that they tried to enact such laws indicates that they
> were aware the current statutes were not what the software companies
> wanted them to be.
> 
> But we continue to have to click "I Agree" in order to even attempt to
> use our purchases. I guess it's like sitting through the FBI warning on
> a DVD movie, nobody really expects G-Men to burst in if we share a
> movie, but the makers somehow think that they are scaring us into
> compliance.

Well -- it's an effective tactic, insofar as anyone thinks he or she
might get caught.  After all, even if legal precedent is (so far) on your
side, it's unlikely you can afford to fight the BSA, MPAA, or RIAA in
court.

Sure, you might win, but there goes your retirement.


> 
> Unfortunately the problem the software, and the movie people for that
> matter, have to contend with are the mass-production "pirates" in Asia,
> not the poor user who actually paid for his shrink-wrapped box, and
> those guys are not deterred by any click-through license, or FBI warning.
> 
> So we have a process that does not work, and wouldn't solve the problem
> even if it did, yet it continues every day.
> 
> Are we sure this wasn't developed by the government ???

Well . . . copyright was basically developed by government, though its
"enhancement" over the years got a lot of help from corporate
bureaucracies (which are about as competent as government bureaucracies).

In other news: copyright itself essentially acts as a "contract" to whose
terms one is subject without having agreed to them, as well.  It is *not*
a proprietary right, as many people seem to believe.  It is not related
to property rights in law, it is not defined in the same manner as
property rights, and the people who initially debated its inclusion in
the Constitution did not think of it as a matter of property.
Technically, copyright is a "limited monopoly" granted by government
fiat, ostensibly for the purpose of encouraging innovation.

As such, everything I said previously about EULAs being treated as though
they were "contracts" -- apply that to copyright law itself, too.  The
difference is that the enforceability of EULAs *might* break down if you
challenge them in court at significant, obscene expense, while that of
copyright is essentially ironclad and, with the addition of more laws
shoring it up in favor of corporate control of ideas all the time, it's
only getting stronger in legal terms.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Power corrupts.  The command line corrupts absolutely.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20080921/dbf3155b/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NCLUG mailing list