Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Thread beginning with comment 339015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Um, reaching a bit?
by joshv on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 14:27
in reply to "RE[2]: Um, reaching a bit?"
RE[4]: Um, reaching a bit?
by Soulbender on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 14:42
in reply to "RE[3]: Um, reaching a bit?"
It is indeed "illegal" to violate even a private contract
The terms "legal" and "illegal" are most commonly used with criminal law, not civil law. It's a bit of a split hair though. It is, however, not a crime to violate a contract.
as the law specifically dictates that we abide by the contracts we enter in to.
It also dictates what can go into a contract and what constitutes valid (or legal, if you wish) contract clauses.
It's not "illegal" to violate an "illegal" contract.
RE[4]: Um, reaching a bit?
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 15:51
in reply to "RE[3]: Um, reaching a bit?"





Member since:
2006-11-12
The term "illegal" describes something that violates a law.
An EULA is definitely not a law -- it is a private contract, usually unsigned.
A civil contract is definitely not a law -- it is a private agreement between one or more parties.
A civil license is definitely not a law -- licenses are private contracts that grant permissions. However, a license from the government (like a driver's license) can be controlled by laws.
Copyright statutes are definitely laws.
Trade secrets and proprietary entities are definitley not laws.
Got it?