Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Thread beginning with comment 352319
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Uhm...
by IkeKrull on Mon 9th Mar 2009 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Uhm..."
IkeKrull
Member since:
2006-01-24

As I understand it, the GPL and the EULA rely on the same fundamental premise - in the absence of a licensing agreement of some kind, you have no rights to do anything with the software.

You have no right to use it, no right to modify it, and no right to distribute it. In some jurisdictions you have the right to reverse engineer the software, but since this implies use, this 'right' may have been practically legislated away - see the Blizzard Glider bot lawsuit.

The GPL grants you the right to use, modify and distribute the software subject to its terms, and the EULA grants you limited rights to use the software, subject to its terms.

I think the fundamental issue here is whether there is an implicit 'right to use' attached to software products.

When you buy a software product, do you automatically receive the right to use it as you see fit? I don't think copyright law provides for this at all - especially where 'usage' involves making one or more copies, whether in system RAM or on disk.

Personally, I think the law is broken in this regard, but AFAIK existing case law in various western countries pretty much supports this interpretation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Uhm...
by Delgarde on Mon 9th Mar 2009 20:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Uhm..."
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I think the fundamental issue here is whether there is an implicit 'right to use' attached to software products.


How would there not be? Can you think of *anything* where purchasing a product doesn't give you the right to use it? If I buy a sandwich, I have the right to eat it. If I buy a book, I have the right to read it. If I buy a CD, I have the right to listen to it.

If I buy a piece of software - I don't automatically have the right to run it? That implies a specific exemption somewhere in the law for software...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Uhm...
by IkeKrull on Tue 10th Mar 2009 18:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Uhm..."
IkeKrull Member since:
2006-01-24

CDs and software require making 'ephemeral copies' in device buffers, RAM etc. in order to support most 'use' models.

Rightsholder groups maintain that this copying requires a license. Preventing such use is considered to be unenforceable, but it is actually one of the key supports for this interpretation of the law - i.e. 'You need a license to use software and digital media products.'

This is how they differ from a sandwich or a car engine, and why EULAs and restrictive terms of use can be attached to software and digital media when there seems to be no such phenomenon in the 'physical' world.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing - in fact its pretty egregiously overreaching and stupid - but this is the situation that is being codified into laws around the world.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Uhm...
by alcibiades on Tue 10th Mar 2009 07:46 in reply to "RE[3]: Uhm..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

When you buy a software product, do you automatically receive the right to use it as you see fit? I don't think copyright law provides for this at all - especially where 'usage' involves making one or more copies, whether in system RAM or on disk.


Yes, you do automatically get such a right. Look at the section of the US Copyright law quoted in the article and by one other poster here. It says:

it is not an infringement [of copyright] for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner


Copyright law generally is implemented to accord with an international convention, so this is probably true in most jurisdictions.

Reply Parent Score: 2