[oclug] And another thing
lists at L8R.net
Sat Nov 22 09:50:15 EST 2003
On 22 Nov 2003 02:01:20 -0500
Milan Budimirovic <milan.budimirovic at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 01:16, Brad Barnett wrote:
> > No! An EULA is not based upon the above premise! An EULA is based
> > upon the premise that you can dictate and enforce contractual
> > obligations_after_ a consumer has purchased the product. This is a
> > fallacy here, but seems partially enforceable in the US. Keep in mind
> > that until the DMCA and other laws came into effect in the US, EULAs
> > were non-enforcable and on unstable ground as well. That was one of
> > the main points of the DMCA, legislation we have not seen here yet.
> > (Yes, the DMCA had other points, but this one indeed one of them. An
> > acceptance of EULA agreements with click through for acceptance. Even
> > so, again, some US courts have even overruled this foolishness.)
> > An EULA is _not_ based upon the fact that copyright law allows the
> > copyright law, there are no extensions allowing the software author to
> > allow additional restrictions.
> > Now, there have been limited cases in Canadian court history where
> > copyright authors of works have been able to enforce certain
> > restrictions via court. For example, an artist that has a piece of
> > work being displayed in a very harmful (to the artist) manner.
> > However, such cases as these have no reasonable linkage to software
> > "licences".
> The last time I checked, SCO was suing IBM in a Utah court. Canadian
> copyright laws are immaterial to the SCO case -- and to this thread for
> that matter.
This thread evolved beyond the confines of the US, when the WIPO/WTO
was mentioned. You were responding to someone's statements with respect
to the WIPO/WTO and their concern with this case.
Additionally, my comments include statements about US courts over ruling
said evil portions of the DMCA which actually allow an EULA to be legally
More information about the OCLUG