Contract v copyright (was Re: [oclug] cracked?)

[Brad Barnett]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:42:23 -0500
Howard Krakower <howardk at zed.net> wrote:

> A "licence" is the right to use an asset within a definite geographic
> boundary for a specified period of time in exchange for the payment of
> a fee or royalty. The geographic boundary is determined by the
> licensor (could be Canada, or worldwide, depending on the nature of
> the licence). The period of time could be limited, as in the case of
> the right to exhibit a film, or unlimited in the case of software
> (because it becomes obsolete). Licences are considered as class 14
> assets (Schedule B of the Income Tax Regulations) and are written off
> over the life of the asset. If you read the EULA associated with
> comercial s/w, you'll see that this all fits in. The restriction are
> not pretty, though.
> 

You are missing the point entirely.

1)  Nothing, I repeat _nothing_ in copyright law states that these
licenses are binding without the acceptance of _both_ parties.  It
merely states that such a license can be assigned.  Firstly, a copyright
holder could have 100 different licenses, all to be used with different
publishers.  Licenses are part of any negotiation for purchase or use, and
are negotiated PRIOR TO SALE, with SIGNATURES BY BOTH PARTIES IN WRITING. 
The copyright act even _stresses_ that a written signature is _required_
by the copyright holder to even _assign_ a license.

2)  None of the above indicates the consumer is bound by any particular
license, without the consumer's prior knowledge of the license, or
acceptance of it, prior to negotiating a purchase.

You can not hoodwink people into retroactively accepting a restrictive
license, a contract, and agreement, or ANY TERMS OR CONDITIONS after the
negotiations are completed!!!  The only exception to this rule would be
a law stating otherwise, and copyright law DOES NOT STATE THAT.

Good grief.  


> Howard.
> 
> Friday, January 9, 2004, 3:16:51 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
> 
> 
> CB> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Brad Barnett wrote:
> 
> >> No, you are not bound by any license, unless you specifically agree
> >to it> by _signing_ for it _prior_ to purchase.
> 
> CB> That'd make it a contract, not a license.  
> 
> CB> A license is a (conditional)  waiver of a restriction (which permits
> CB> you to do what you would otherwise be prevented from doing). A
> CB> license is unilateral (but might have a condition applied, such as
> CB> you paying for your fishing license).
> 
> CB> ---
> CB> Charlie
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ZedNet Technologies
> visit us at http://www.zed.net
> 
> -- 
> OCLUG general discussion list
> OCLUG at lists.oclug.on.ca
> http://www.oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug