Originally posted by t_vor
[B]"I assumed that we were talking, for the sake of this discussion, about the licensing that results from copyright"
this begs the question. you're attempting to support your assertion that "EULA is based upon copyright" by limiting the discussion to licensing that results from copyright. obviously, if the discussion is so limited, your assertion would have been unnecessary and redundant. taking this into consideration along with the facts that there had been no prior stipulation on the limitations of the discussion and that even licenses pertaining to copyrighted materials are under on onus to be based on copyright, i think i'll stick with my original statemnet.
Did you notice the name of the thread? We were talking about copyrights and such. Some have given bad examples that went astray. so, possibly the thread moved in that direction. But I'm not limiting this, I'm trying to keep it on track. If you want to bring everything else into it, fine, we can talk about license plates too.
You can stick with your statement. In its area, it's correct. I won't argue yhat."There doesn't have to be a statute requiring that EULA be based upon copyright, because if it weren't, it would not be valid, at least, not in those rights claimed"
nope. it would be easy to create a valid license that has as it's only stipulation that the material is only allowed to be read while wearing red pajamas. i may have missed it, but i'm pretty sure that there's nothing in copyright law about the color of one's pajamas.[/QUOTE]
You could write a license based on that, but it wouldn't have automatic protection as based in law that has laid down the parameters over two centuries. Licenses based upon copyright, trademark, and patents have the force of accepted law, and precedent. It could be done though.
all that i had said is that an eula is not necessarily based on copyright. since licenses may have nothing to do with copyrighted material or specify any modification to the rights available even dealing with copyrighted material, this seems like a rather reasonable assertion.
I have never seen a EULA for copyighted materials (or patented, or trademarked) that wasn't based upon the laws earmarked for that purpose. Maybe you have. I'm curious. Have you an example?"I never said that it had equal validity everywhere, just in those States that recognise it."
however, that is simply not the case. the gateway cases neatly proves the point. had gateway employed a clickwrap license, a contract would have been formed immediately. since they used a shrinkwrap license instead, the affirmative action of not returning the merchandise in the alloted return period was required for the formation of the contract.[/QUOTE]
Each law has its own requirements. The examples shown reflect that shrinkwrap has the force of law.
I'm sure that we can both find more examples.