Nina said:
Microsoft is not able to make laws. Their EULA is not a law, it is a
contract.
No one has ever claimed that it is. Lintrolls and others always accuse
people of claiming the EULA is law when they need to divert attention
from their lack of any other rational rebuttal, but this is a glaringly
transperent tactic that fools no one.
Do you know the difference? A contract is a formal agreement
between 2 (usually private) parties.
Doh! It is the breach of the contract, regardless of type, that is the
violation of the law, the Uniform Commercial Code, to be specific.
(Also, violation of the EULA would also, in the US, be a violation of
Copyright law.)
If you promise to loan a buck to a friend, but then realize later you
can't because you don't have change, does this mean that you broke the
law?
If there was a formal contract, then I'd say so, yes.
If it was put in writing, would it mean you broke the law then?
No.
Now it's your turn to cite a reference to support this claim
Not unless your friend decided to take you to court and press the
matter in a court of law.
Are you kidding? By that "reasoning," no crime can ever have been
committed, no law can ever have been broken, until someone is tried and
convicted, regardless of the bloody corpses scattered about the scene.
The court could potentially make the ruling
that you broke the law by breaching the terms of the contract, but until
that happens it's only a breach of contract.
Not so.
Note I am referring to
fair use and personal, non-commercial use.
Oh, please. The term "fair use" is most often deliberately misused
by those who oppose protecting intellectual property as a "red herring"
in any argument concerning copyright laws and the EULA, because it
sounds like something everyone should favor.
"Fair Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't apply in any way to
this discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Release date: 2004-04-30
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
