RE: [tlug] copyright and theft [was: unicode font with czech ...]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

burlingk@example.com writes:

 > Microsoft EULA's are worded as contracts.

"By reading this post, you agree that you owe me $100 for every copy
of it you make or have made on your behalf, including all MTA queues
and copies in the registers, L1, and L2 caches."

That's worded as a contract too, but wording is not enough to make it
a valid contract.

 > Most new systems come set up in such a way that the first time
 > you boot them, it requires you to agree to the EULA.

If you agree, it *is* a contract.  That is the essence.

If the first thing you do is stick in a Knoppix disk, it isn't a
contract, and nothing can make it one.  The only protection the
preinstalled bits on the disk have is copyright law.

 > You may concider an EULA different from a contract, but
 > it gets treated the same way in court, just like a "Handshake
 > Agreement" used too, except that with an EULA, the judge has
 > sufficient reason to assume that the plaintif is not making
 > things up.

Not in the face of live CDs and the "Microsoft tax", she doesn't.  If
you can present a live CD and evidence that the machine couldn't be
bought without Windows preinstalled at a lower price (in many cases,
not at all), I think you will beat the EULA in court (if you can
afford the legal fees, that is).  You can't beat copyright, though.

 > And for those systems that don't ask you to agree to the EULA
 > at startup, there is the wonderful clause in the manual that
 > states that by using the software, you agree to the terms of
 > the EULA.

Which AFAIK is not legally valid, especially in this day and age of
software that you are not supposed to need to read the manual to use.

EULAs really depend on either a sticker on the shrink wrap (in which
case the full EULA must be prominently posted in the store, or you get
off) or an explicit login procedure requiring agreement before boot
can complete.