auerbach said:
Kurt,
Clearly you don't believe that software copyrights bar the private
use of programs (e.g. Windows) on more machines than the license
purports to permit.
You're certainly not alone in thinking that the EULA language in many
shrinkwrap "contracts" is needlessly burdensome. But your argument
founders at the first key point you mention: "Private non-commercial
individual use." I would assume that non-commercial use of software
would include a student analyzing the code to learn how programmers
structured it. But if I install a program on my home computer and use
it in lieu of purchasing the same software at a store, I am making
commercial use of it.
How? You already purchased a copy of a copyrighted work.
"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
If I buy two cans of paint, one to fix up my factory and another for
brightening up my home, both are commercial transactions.
But not a commercial use of the product by the purchaser. When do you use
your toilet paper, at the cash register in the grocery store, on in the
privacy of your bathroom?
The fact
that one can of paint will be used in my private residence doesn't
give me the right to walk out of the paint store without paying for
that can.
Do you often make copies of copyrighted material in a store, or in your
home.
Similarly, the fact that I am using software in a computer
in my home, rather than in a business setting, cannot immunize me
against a charge of copyright infringement.
Boy, are you delusional! Did you even read the post you responded to? The
1st factor in determining the "the purpose and character of your use." And
non-commercial use, is a lot less infringing, by sheer logic alone, than
commercial uses.
And "use" has nothing to do with a commercial transaction of the original
copyrighted material.
What fascinates me is how vocally we software users complain about
antipiracy measures, which cost us a few hundred bucks, yet we remain
silent on the nonsensical idea that software is not a product, and
therefore publishers can't be sued when their flawed products cause
serious damage that can cost a business thousands -- or put it out of
business.
I'm beginning to think that Microsoft and other big publishers
deliberately beat the drums on the copyright issue in order to
inflame opposition on this issue and thereby distract us from the
much more important topic of software quality problems and the
liability that publishers rightly should face for their mistakes.
It's like cars. The auto industry won't ever build a car that isn't
delibertly designed to break down some time in the future. Welcome to the
real world of capitalism!
Now since we are doomed to sh*tty corporate products, we don't need to be
harrassed by the corporate scumbags in the privacy of our homes with
copy-protection that just adds another thing to make a sh*tty product
sh*ttier to use. Plus I'm personally offended by these coporate copyright
thugs calling consumers thieves for "fairly using" the heavily marked-up
copies of copyrighted material that they buy, when not one individual in the
US has *EVER* been found to be infringing on a Copyright for copying and
using copies of a copyrighted work for private non-commercial use.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
