Amiga osX

[mdwh2]

MarkTime wrote:
Your country sweden is not the WHOLE WORLD.
This is what many people have been trying to drill into this discussion.

Sweden was an example of a country where EULAs are definately not enforceable. However, we've yet to have an example of a country (or even an individual state) where an EULA has been upheld in court.. how many are there?

There are many countries in the world, and in the vast majority of Europe and America, the idea that you can buy a service, license a product, is central to IP ownership.  You do not BUY OS X.  You buy a limited license to use OS X under certain restrictions.

Yes, but those restrictions are defined by copyright law; they are not defined by what extra conditions a company decides to spring on you, after the contract of purchase has already been completed.

It's all very well saying that the EULA is a legal licence, but you're forgetting that before that happens, the user has paid money in exchange for the right to use the software (as described by the laws of their country). So unless the terms of the EULA are presented at the time of purchase, they mean nothing - if the user refuses to accept the EULA, then big deal - they still have a right to use the software, and do anything that can be considered "fair use".

The way that the argument is supposed to go, as far as I can see, is that because the user clicked "I accept", then that means they *did* accept the contract. However this seems dubious to me, mainly because the user is forced to do this in order to use the product that they have a legal right to use, but also because clicking a button in a computer program isn't generally recognised as a means of necessarily agreeing with a contract (if I walk around with a sticker on my forehead which says "if you shake my hand, you must pay me £1000", if I managed to get someone to unwittingly do that, I'd be surprised if that would hold up in court). And also, this means that if the user gets round this (ie, installing without clicking okay somehow, whether it's done by installing manually, or hacking it somehow), then there would be no way they could have been said to have agreed with the EULA.

Getting more on-topic, the licence agreement for AmigaOS 3.9 says "This License allows you to install and use the Amiga Software on a single Amiga-labeled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time", which could be taken to mean that you aren't allowed to run it on an emulator. Though in this case you don't even have to click "I accept" to it; I just don't accept what this says, and stick with what the law allows me to do (or perhaps I could instead get round it by sticking an Amiga label on my PC;)

Remember that Sony were unable to prevent people from selling Playstation emulators - though I'm unable to find out whether Playstation games typically have a "you can only play this on a real Playstation" type EULA.. anyone know more about this case?

[GAG]

Please excuse me for loving this thread.  I am finding it interesting, amusing, and informative even though some might be getting a little hot under the collar!  So here's something for you guys to chew on...

Taking into account what has been said so far lets put this all into perspective.

Imagine, if you will, that I have written a killer application for the Amiga and everone wants to use it, port it etc etc.  However, to ensure that my program isn't pinched, reverse engineered or damn right stolen from me I have made up an EULA to protect my software.  This EULA is agreed to by the user who purchases it BEFORE installation.
In this EULA I say something like "It can only be used on an Amiga (hardware)", is this wrong?  If I said something like "you must be over 30 years old", is that wrong?  O.k. it's age descrimanation and some countries probably have laws against that, but you don't have to agree!

It all comes down to what the user agrees before installation.  You DON'T have to agree but doing so means you cannot use the software.  The problem arrives when you take the software back to the store saying that you didn't use it or install it and ask for a refund.  There are also laws/rules for retailers when it comes to returned software.  It's very tricky to work out if the customer is entitled to a refund especially as you can easily copy, registered, and return software without it bieng checked by the store.  This is probably where software should be checked with a central database to see whether the software was installed or registered.  M$ are trying to do this by enforcing thier registration techniques via the internet, but no check is made at the stores.

By selling the software the customer/user may own the physical disk (by law) but they do not own the software or the right to do as they please with it.  There is something called 'Intellectual property' whereas the software is not owned by the person who has the disk...they simply just 'rent' the software (so to speak).  An everyday example is a bank or credit card.  That card may be yours, it has your name on it, but the bank owns the card and they can withdraw it at any time.

At the end of the day, if I said that in order to use my software you have to comply with MY rules, no matter how immoral they may be, then I can inforce that because the software is mine (intellectual property).  If you continue to use the software and by doing so have agreed to my rules, should you break these rules then you have broken an agreement (or contract) and you can, quite rightly, be classed as a pirate!

The world of computing has turned from 'Personal Computing' to simply using terminals on the internet.  The end user owns nothing but the physical product.  :-(

[Floid]

I enjoy the phrase "Minitels from Microsoft."

Edit: As has been brought up time and again in SCO threads, "intellectual property" is a meaningless phrase, at least under US law.  Real structures include copyrights, trademarks, patents, and contracts -- and more obscurely, things like 'trade secrets,' 'network elements,' 'telecommunications services,' and 'customer information,' all knowledge/communications artifacts regulated and protected under various laws.  As I keep saying, the regulations and their enforcement are very much in flux -- but just because there's a riot on doesn't mean you're obligated to loot the store.

[GadgetMaster]

EULAs are a legal minefield.

Anyone remember the infamous Borland EULA?

Clauses like that,  hidden in small print make you wonder if the software company is really being fair to the customer, should they be allowed to go to such extreme lengths to protect their software?

IMHO there is scope in EULAs for flexibility. In their contract they can extend their fair use policy to any paying customer if they want to.

Of course it is upto the company involved to do so but i think a clearer and simpler policy would do them a lot of good in the long run.

Anyway maybe this topic has been dicussed to death eh ? It does seem to be dragging on a bit. Time to let it rest I think.

[Tomas]

Your country sweden is not the WHOLE WORLD.

But USA is the whole world right? The laws there are correct, while other laws of other countries is incorrect?

[Tomas]

The laws in UK were ENTIRELY misrepresented and completely false.....and I checked with UK governmetn websites, the writings of EU on the subject (to check EU countries) and even Microsoft UK division.

That is true... UK law is very similar to US in this issue... I believe the UK law regarding this, is one of the tightest/strict laws in Europe.

And btw, I am quite well aware that the pro-piracy europeans in this website will try the dirty tactic of being 'anit-american'...when they need to silence some opinion...'you american are all alike' has already been heard.

How can you call US pro piracy when this is not regarded as piracy here? You are being kinda of an racist now, telling us that our laws is wrong, while your countries law is right...

I have not checked this, but i believe the licensing terms might be different in the copies you buy here... Often those license say it applies to US/Canada..

[mdwh2]

GAG wrote:
This EULA is agreed to by the user who purchases it BEFORE installation.
In this EULA I say something like "It can only be used on an Amiga (hardware)", is this wrong?  If I said something like "you must be over 30 years old", is that wrong?  O.k. it's age descrimanation and some countries probably have laws against that, but you don't have to agree!

It all comes down to what the user agrees before installation.  You DON'T have to agree but doing so means you cannot use the software.

Well this is exactly the question - are we talking about an EULA that takes place at the time of purchase, or one that happens during installation? IMO there is a fundamental difference.

I would say that in the latter case, you don't have agree, but nonetheless you can still use the software. In the former case, the company can refuse to sell the software to whoever for whatever reason, and force customers to sign legal contracts before purchase. But we don't have to do this for any other kind of product; I'd find it scary if this became commonplace for software.

By selling the software the customer/user may own the physical disk (by law) but they do not own the software or the right to do as they please with it.  There is something called 'Intellectual property' whereas the software is not owned by the person who has the disk...

What can and can't be done is covered by copyright law. Which says nothing about letting companies have total control in saying what you can and can't do with the software.

they simply just 'rent' the software (so to speak).

Except the majority of software (including MacOS X, and AmigaOS 3.9) isn't rented.

At the end of the day, if I said that in order to use my software you have to comply with MY rules, no matter how immoral they may be, then I can inforce that because the software is mine (intellectual property).  If you continue to use the software and by doing so have agreed to my rules, should you break these rules then you have broken an agreement (or contract) and you can, quite rightly, be classed as a pirate!

If you give the rules upfront, then perhaps. But you can't change the rules after you've already accepted money from your customers. And a pirate is someone who copies without permission; not someone who doesn't accept the contract that you try to impose after purchase.

The world of computing has turned from 'Personal Computing' to simply using terminals on the internet.  The end user owns nothing but the physical product.  :-(

Erm, except it hasn't. I don't know about you, but the software I run is running locally on my machine, and not on some remote server.

[Stew]

At the end of the day, if I said that in order to use my software you have to comply with MY rules, no matter how immoral they may be, then I can inforce that because the software is mine (intellectual property).


__________________________________________


 While no one would argue that the producer needs to be compensated what ever they ask for their product (well excluding pirates), telling what kind of machine to run it on seems unfair. Was it Legal to dump tea in Boston harbour ?

  I don't know how many would obey a 25mph speed limit on the interstate. Silly example but that is how I feel when a stupid EULA is written. I have bought the product retail and everybody involved has been compensated . How is this wrong?

Note I am talking about fair and not the Legality of something.

[AmigaHeretic]

@ MarkTime

What if I install a program manually?  What I mean is if I install software without using an installer and never click on the "I Agree" button when the "Contract" comes saying I have to run it on specific hardware.

I often install software manually, so if I never click the "I Agree" button and the shop keeper where I bought my software doesn't make me sign or agree to anything saying I have to run it on "this particular" hardware am I breaking the law?

I've never seen a software box or been told buy someone selling me software that I "have to use the installer" or I can't use their software.   I have also never heard of a law that says I have to use the "Included Installer"....so?

AmigaGuy

[Waccoon]

You know what I would like to see?  More developers putting their license conditions on their websites, so you can read them BEFORE you buy their products.  Most companies do this for downloadable products, but not boxed products.

As for this thread, there's not a lot of helpful information, here.  Personally, I don't care what the law says.  I care what the developer/publisher says, and if they're going to screw me with stupid license restrictions, I'll just buy someone else's software.

The real problem is that people don't complain when they get screwed.  They ignore the licenses and use the software anyway, then get all pissy when privacy, security, and reliability start becoming a problem, and they have no legal recourse because they didn't abide by the licenses.

Money talks.  Boycott.  Buy stuff from companies that don't put you through license hell.  Don't steal it or use it illegally.

WISE UP!

[kokigami]

better, unionize. and protest..


The fact is, the Eula's are bad for consumers. But the companies have all the power. If the Eula is  a contract, it is one presented under duress. Now that Linux is under attack, that duress is greater.

It is not possible for one person to renogotiate the Eula. Let's say for OSX. But a user's union, comprising say 25% of their market share, could do something.

Also protest. Go to the store and buy a piece of software. Take it home, open the box, read the Eula on the packaging or if they leave it til install, on the install screen. Take it back. Get another copy. See if it has a better Eula. If not take it back. An organized effort could leave few unopened boxes

The "xproduct branded" Eula's should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Look at the precedent..

Sony pictures makes a blockbuster movie "Lesbian Sex Kittens from Mars".. And eventually sends it off to Sony Entertainment to press DVD's. Then someone bright at Sony sees that Apple has successfully defended this Eula term in court. "hey," says she, "let's put a Eula on this DVD. "

So to watch Lesbian Sex kittens from Mars we all have to buy a Sony DVD player. See where that could go?

[iamaboringperson]

 :roflmao:

[derklempner]

haha omg this whole topic cracks me up!

i'm with everyone who says licences that try dictate to you what you can and can not do with something you have *paid for* are absurd :-)

@MarkTime
"re-read my earlier post, you can only buy a license to use Mac OS X on apple branded hardware."

damn, does that mean I have to stop wiping my ass with OSX cds? would an apple tattoo on my left cheek satisfy the EULA? :-P

man! and all this time i've been feeding my chickens ground osx-cd feed.  i suppose that violates the EULA too doesn't it.  ho hum.  now what will i feed the chooks? ;-)

what i'm trying to say is that, as long as you have paid for it, i believe it should be up to the individual as to what they do with it.  if i pay for something i'm gunna do damn well what i want with it, regardless of what its original intended use is ;-)

[Phoenix]

@Marktime

Get one thing straight, I would not at anytime call on the webmaster to restrict another persons views I find even the idea offensive! Secondly I started this thread to ask about the technical hard/software issues and not the legal/moral implications. I will be doing my homework on legal side thanks to your posts though.

[joemango]

There's a thing called Fair Use that probably applies here.  It allows you to use a copyrighted work for your own purposes as long as you paid for one copy.  If Apple decided to enforce their EULA agreement via lawsuit, they might lose given the history of fair use.  There is legal precedent I believe, (IANAL) that enables someone to reverse-engineer a product, although it is, like all copyright issues today, seriously threatened by pending legislation.

It's a grey area.  A license may be a contract, but it is not a law.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled ennui.

mango

[GAG]

I dunno if I have got this right but if I haven`t then this might seem like a good idea to help stop pirating software.  Or maybe I am just repeating old news....hmmm...here goes.

Apple are using this great idea which they have introduced into thier own music software, itunes, where you can preview and listen to a music track before paying a small fee and downloading.  This is an old idea iirc but finally put to good use with Mac OSX and iTunes 4.  It`s known as the Apple Music store.

Ah, but what if you download the music and then copy it onto CD?  Well, from what I understand you can put that music file onto a CD or copy it 10 times before it becomes unusable...however I believe the track itself is encoded and they use some sort of serial number or encoding to make sure you don`t pass it around.  O.K. so there are ways around it but the idea seems good.

Maybe this is what M$ are trying to do with thier EULA and registration thingy?  They are going to encode the files and you can`t access them without the key which is generated via the serial number/s on your computer when you registeryour PC to M$ via the internet?
I have read all the articles about how M$ can access PC`s without your concent and change files remotely and how windows XP expects to connect to a M$ server when you go online!

What scares me most is that you computer gets probed ever minute by some scumbag and leaves a great gaping hole in your internet security.

THE BEST WAY to stop people copying software is to put a sodding big book with the disk and do what `Frontier Elite` did....ask for the word in a paragraph or page xxx!  By the time you have photocopied all the pages you might as well have bought it!  :-)