Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Sep 2010 23:38 UTC
Legal EULAs, and whatever nonsense they may contain, are legally binding in the US. Have a great weekend!
Thread beginning with comment 440639
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

EULA would not appear and use the software however you wished.


What makes you think the copyrtight holder even have ANY rights at all dictating how their work is used? Does Ford have a right to tell you what roads you can drive their cars on or what race the passengers has to be?

That's not the case, though because you've now created a derivative work, which is something covered by copyright law.


Use does not create a derivative work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

The EULA is a contract. Should the contract be presented before sale? Yes. Is that common practice? If it's a download, often times _YES!_
With physical media becoming less common I don't see the EULA popping up during install being the first opportunity to see it for very long.


*headdesk*
The derivative work is the hacked file.
If you weren't going to distribute the resulting file, why would you avoid seeing the EULA?
You're not even granted the right to copy(install) the software without being granted it by the EULA.
That's copyright at it's most basic level. The RIGHT to COPY something.
My point is that the EULA grants at least one right to the user, which is the right to install (copy) it to disk. The additional restrictions are often greater, but that's another issue entirely.

If I buy a book, I can do whatever I want with that book. I can read it, sell it, eat it, burn it, use it as toilet paper, smoke it... But the _contents_ of the book are not mine to do with as I please. Unless I am explicitly granted the right to do something with the words and/or ideas contained in that text, I cannot copy (without citation, for non-educational purposes, and/ore beyond minimally quoting), alter-and-redistribute (change certain pages out with different text, sell the result as a new work) etc.

So yes, copyright holders can tell me what I can and cannot do with their work.
Within reason.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The derivative work is the hacked file.


As someone already said, it's perfectly legalfor me to hack it as long as I don't distribute it and it's not a derivative work unless i do distribute it.

But the _contents_ of the book are not mine to do with as I please.


Actually, it is. I can do whatever the hell i want with the contents as long as I don't distribute whatever changes I've done. I can swap chapters around, change the text, whatever. It is all perfectly legal.

You're not even granted the right to copy(install) the software without being granted it by the EULA.


Nonsense. Installing the software is a required step for me to use the product I have purchased. I dont need to the EULA to allow me to do this.

That's copyright at it's most basic level. The RIGHT to COPY something


Copyright also makes exceptions for fair use etc. That's why I dont need the EULA to allow me to install and actually USE the product.

My point is that the EULA grants at least one right to the user, which is the right to install (copy) it to disk


No, copyright law gives me that permission. If I needed to EULA to allow me to do this it is as absurd as if the copyright holder of a book would need to give me permission to read the book (essentially copy to my memory) I have purchased.

So yes, copyright holders can tell me what I can and cannot do with their work


No, they can't. copyright law permits me to do whateever changes I like and copyrighty law forbids me from distributing the (perhaps modified) contents.
What the copyright holder wants is nothing I need to give a shit about.

Reply Parent Score: 5