And these computers could well be used to run Windows or Linux. Sure, it might just be a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scenario that they are designed for the purpose of running OS X, but how is that different than the already mentioned selling of stills or bongs?
Read the reports! Open Tech would not just sell a computer. At the customer's request, the company would include a "do-it-yourself" kit specifically designed to allow Mac OS X to run on their non-Apple computer. If Apple has not granted a license to anyone to install and run Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer--let alone on an Open Tech computer--then that kit serves no other purpose but to infringe on Apple's copyright.
How is this any different than running Windoz on a mac?
Regards, Phil
Macintosh b'Gosh
Read the EULA that comes with Windows. Do you see anywhere where Microsoft says you are allowed to install and run the software on any computer except a Mac?
Read the reports! Open Tech would not just sell a computer. At the customer's request, the company would include a "do-it-yourself" kit specifically designed to allow Mac OS X to run on their non-Apple computer. If Apple has not granted a license to anyone to install and run Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer--let alone on an Open Tech computer--then that kit serves no other purpose but to infringe on Apple's copyright.
Then all Apple could do is go after them to stop including the "do-it-yourself" kits. Even that would be doubtful since all that it contains is information that is already available to the public. The only recourse Apple would really have is to go after both this company and every site that is hosting the same information, which is something Apple hasn't bothered to do yet.
Enforceable is different from legal, which copyright infringement is not.
, any assistance Open Tech provides for installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer amounts to copyright infringement. But once warned, if Open Tech continues the practice, they won't live much longer.
No. Under US law, a copyright holder does not have the right to restrict someone from making a copy of a computer program in order to use that program.
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or"
The law that Apple should be able to win on, against these Mac clones, is that no can profit from your copyrighted material without your permission (license).
...
They can not use someone elses copyrighted work to make money. Not without the permission of the copyright owner. Just like you can't use someone elses copyrighted movie to make money. Even if you bought and own the movie. The copyright owner has every right to protect all potential income derieved from using his coyrighted work.
Do you REALLY believe that?
So when Apple released the first iPod, it pre-dated the iTunes store by about three years. That means the only possible use for an iPod for those three years was by copying your CDs onto your computer and then onto your iPod.
I guess under your logic, Apple should have been shut down by the record companies for "using someone elses copyrighted work to make money."
By the way, in the UK, there is no right to make an archival or "private" copy, so every CD copied to an iPod is, in fact, a copyright violation under UK law. Yet, Apple makes millions of dollars from UK iPod sales.
Does the same standard your proposing apply to Apple?
So when Apple released the first iPod, it pre-dated the iTunes store by about three years. That means the only possible use for an iPod for those three years was by copying your CDs onto your computer and then onto your iPod.
Yes, I have several CDs of my private performances of the Beethoven sonatas. Well, there is one of me singing in the shower, too, but I hardly listen to that anymore. Curiously, none of them has sold very well.
Of course, there is "fair use" for the few other commercial CDs in my possession.
No. Under US law, a copyright holder does not have the right to restrict someone from making a copy of a computer program in order to use that program.
I'm under the impression that a user can also alter any legally purchased software to suit their personal needs without being in violation of copyright law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melevittfl
Do you REALLY believe that?
The RIAA certainly wants us to believe that you can't legally: 1) change the file format of any audio under their thumb; 2) move the file from one media to another. Of course, this is something they defined long after PMPs took hold.
If they want misery, it would be easier and cheaper to simply slam their fingers in a car door or watch any complete season of "Dallas".
Trying to impinge on the smallest market section for HW/SW is hardly a solid biz plan. Especially when they get dragged into court by a company with a nine-figure savings account.
$129 should be the upgrade price for MacOS with the full version at $1299.
Interesting and amusing idea.
The problem with actually doing it would be that they'd sell practically zero, but piracy would be absolutely huge. Apple would be saying it's OK to run OSX on generic hardware, losing a bunch of hardware sales, but making hardly anything in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot
You guys kept saying apple should offer OS X on PC and the crap but you all never realize that they did that before! and it doesn't work, instead the company suffer more.
They did that before? Um...what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8346T
Guys,
How is this any different than running Windoz on a mac?
Regards, Phil
Macintosh b'Gosh
Because the windows license agreement allows installing and running on any machine that is compatible.
No. Under US law, a copyright holder does not have the right to restrict someone from making a copy of a computer program in order to use that program.
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or"
Yes, under U.S. law, a copyright owner can restrict someone from copying a computer program if they don't own the copy.
Apple's EULA states that the buyer of Mac OS X "Leopard" only purchases the media on which the software is recorded. Apple and its licensor(s) retain ownership of the software itself.
Apple, allow Mac OS X on any PC out there and sell billions of Mac OS X copies.
Even more: open Mac OS X and give it for free to make Windows history in three years!
On the surface this sounds pretty cool, especially the part about killing MSFT. On the other hand, I suspect that the main reason that many of us prefer and use Apple products is precisely because of their dedication to making sure the consumer cannot screw up the OS we like so much. The adage, "Be careful what you ask for...you might get it." could apply here.
Do you happen to remember the "dark ages" when Steve Jobs was not around? Life (with computers) was not nearly as good as it is today. Better pray for his continued good health so that a firm hand continues to guide Apple.
If this is true, I wonder if it would run into problems because it is basically encouraging people to violate EULA agreements. I don't remember if the legalese word is inducement or something else.
There have been many attempts in Congress to pass an "induce" amendment to the copyright law. None have passed.
These laws have been opposed by all hardware manufacturers, because they would make (for example) CD-R manufacturers liable for the CDs people duplicate using the drives. These laws would put entire industries out of business - nobody would be able to sell a CD/DVD burner, a VCR, a photocopier, or even a printer without being sued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WattsM
No, the problem with selling OS X on non-Apple hardware is more fundamental: it's declaring open war on Microsoft.
Did I miss a press release somewhere? Who says Apple wants to declare open war on Microsoft?
[QUOTE=kenaustus;1283166]"Inducing Breach of Contract" is the term that caught my eye. While it may
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
And this EULA is enforcable. A while back my health club use to have movie nights. On Wednesday nights my club would show a couple of movies that they rented from the local Blockbuster. They did not charge admission, they served free popcorn and charged a dollar for a pitcher of beer. ... Well an attorney showed up one day and told them they had to stop it.
This has nothing to do with EULA. No public performance of a movie is allowed without permission from the copyright holder.
The same goes for music. If your business does so much as play a radio in the background, you need to buy performance licenses from the copyright holders. Fortunately, there are three clearinghouses (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) which handle the grunt work, so you don't need to negotiate a dozen licenses with a dozen record labels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Encouraging infringement is illegal under the copyright laws.
Please cite the law where this is prohibited. I've read Title 17 many times and have never seen anything that prohibits telling someone else how to violate a copyright, much less a EULA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melevittfl
So when Apple released the first iPod, it pre-dated the iTunes store by about three years. That means the only possible use for an iPod for those three years was by copying your CDs onto your computer and then onto your iPod.
Yes. That's exactly what Apple was advertising. The only legal way to get music on an iPod at that time was to rip your own CDs, or download from a legal service (and there were legal services, even then - like eMusic.)
Of course, there is "fair use" for the few other commercial CDs in my possession.
In the US, that's a valid point. But in the UK, for example, there is no such things as "fair use" for copying CDs. i.e., copying your CD to an iPod in the UK is a copyright violation. Apple sold many iPods in the UK prior to the existence of the iTunes Store (and thus the only possible way to use the iPod was to illegally copy your CDs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2
Yes, under U.S. law, a copyright owner can restrict someone from copying a computer program if they don't own the copy.
Apple's EULA states that the buyer of Mac OS X "Leopard" only purchases the media on which the software is recorded. Apple and its licensor(s) retain ownership of the software itself.
True, but Apple sells copies of Leopard every day. After the sale is completed, I get home an discover that some Apple lawyers has claimed I merely entered into a license, but lawyers don't write the law.
Autodesk tried to make the same claim and were slapped down in court:
Think of the difference between going to a store to buy a copy of Leopard and leasing a car.
Do you hand over the cash for the car and then, when you get it home discover you've entered a leasing agreement where you have to surrender the car you just bought back to the dealer after three years? No.
Likewise, when you buy the software, do you sit down with a salesperson and sign a document listing when the software must be returned, how much you can use it before paying extra, and that the software must be in good working order when returned? No.
Buying software doesn't feel like a signing a lease (license) and at least one federal judge has said that it's actually a sale and therefore the buyer own that copy. Just because a lawyer writes something opposite in a piece of paper stuck in the box, that doesn't give it the force of law.
That's exactly what Apple was advertising. The only legal way to get music on an iPod at that time was to rip your own CDs, or download from a legal service (and there were legal services, even then - like eMusic.)
Right. Remember "Rip, mix, burn"?
Everyone claiming Open Tech should be crushed for "stealing" Apple's "property", remember that, to the record companies, Apple was just as much guilty of "inducing" piracy and making money off of people "stealing" their "property."
If I refused to accept the license agreement, I would nonetheless still be the legitimate owner of the physical media on which is held a copy of the software, so under pure copyright law Apple would not have the ability to prevent me from installing it on the computer of my choice.
I would like to see where you referenced that from.
In the US, that's a valid point. But in the UK, for example, there is no such things as "fair use" for copying CDs. i.e., copying your CD to an iPod in the UK is a copyright violation. Apple sold many iPods in the UK prior to the existence of the iTunes Store (and thus the only possible way to use the iPod was to illegally copy your CDs).
The only possible way? Did you forget my wonderful, private recordings of the Beethoven sonatas? I listen to them all the time on my iPod. For most everyone else, don't forget the availability of podcasts.
Quote:
... Apple sells copies of Leopard every day. After the sale is completed, I get home an discover that some Apple lawyers has claimed I merely entered into a license, but lawyers don't write the law.
The exterior says "Requirements: Mac computer..." That seems clear enough to me. No legal mumbo jumbo there. The advertising probably mentioned this was for Macs only, too. In case you're inclined to throw your money at anything shiny, inside the Leopard box, the software license agreement says that if you do not agree to the terms, then do not use the software. If you do not agree to the terms you may return the software to where you bought it for a refund. That seems fair to me! And if you're inclined to throw your money at anything that shines, well, do you even care if you can get a refund?
Quote:
Autodesk tried to make the same claim and were slapped down in court:
Wrong. Read the article more carefully and you'll see that the court's decision had to do with whether the software could be re-sold. That's all. The decision did not throw out restrictions that may be placed on use of the software by the copyright holder.
Quote:
Think of the difference between going to a store to buy a copy of Leopard and leasing a car.
Do you hand over the cash for the car and then, when you get it home discover you've entered a leasing agreement where you have to surrender the car you just bought back to the dealer after three years? No.
Actually, in many locales a person can terminate a written contract for any reason within a few days of signing. But anyway, I don't see how your example supports your argument.
Quote:
Likewise, when you buy the software, do you sit down with a salesperson and sign a document listing when the software must be returned, how much you can use it before paying extra, and that the software must be in good working order when returned? No.
Buying software doesn't feel like a signing a lease (license) and at least one federal judge has said that it's actually a sale and therefore the buyer own that copy. Just because a lawyer writes something opposite in a piece of paper stuck in the box, that doesn't give it the force of law.
Please cite the law where this is prohibited. I've read Title 17 many times and have never seen anything that prohibits telling someone else how to violate a copyright, much less a EULA.
I hd this case bokmarked for this very purpose, but as is the case with the internet, this is what came up:
I'd like to be able to find it again, if I can remember what to put into Google, assuming that it is findable. I come up with a unmber of different cases, but not the one I'm looking for, so far.
Comments
How is this any different than running Windoz on a mac?
Regards, Phil
Macintosh b'Gosh
And these computers could well be used to run Windows or Linux. Sure, it might just be a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scenario that they are designed for the purpose of running OS X, but how is that different than the already mentioned selling of stills or bongs?
Read the reports! Open Tech would not just sell a computer. At the customer's request, the company would include a "do-it-yourself" kit specifically designed to allow Mac OS X to run on their non-Apple computer. If Apple has not granted a license to anyone to install and run Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer--let alone on an Open Tech computer--then that kit serves no other purpose but to infringe on Apple's copyright.
Guys,
How is this any different than running Windoz on a mac?
Regards, Phil
Macintosh b'Gosh
Read the EULA that comes with Windows. Do you see anywhere where Microsoft says you are allowed to install and run the software on any computer except a Mac?
Maybe I don't understand your question.
Read the reports! Open Tech would not just sell a computer. At the customer's request, the company would include a "do-it-yourself" kit specifically designed to allow Mac OS X to run on their non-Apple computer. If Apple has not granted a license to anyone to install and run Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer--let alone on an Open Tech computer--then that kit serves no other purpose but to infringe on Apple's copyright.
Then all Apple could do is go after them to stop including the "do-it-yourself" kits. Even that would be doubtful since all that it contains is information that is already available to the public. The only recourse Apple would really have is to go after both this company and every site that is hosting the same information, which is something Apple hasn't bothered to do yet.
Enforceable is different from legal, which copyright infringement is not.
, any assistance Open Tech provides for installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer amounts to copyright infringement. But once warned, if Open Tech continues the practice, they won't live much longer.
No. Under US law, a copyright holder does not have the right to restrict someone from making a copy of a computer program in order to use that program.
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or"
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
The law that Apple should be able to win on, against these Mac clones, is that no can profit from your copyrighted material without your permission (license).
...
They can not use someone elses copyrighted work to make money. Not without the permission of the copyright owner. Just like you can't use someone elses copyrighted movie to make money. Even if you bought and own the movie. The copyright owner has every right to protect all potential income derieved from using his coyrighted work.
Do you REALLY believe that?
So when Apple released the first iPod, it pre-dated the iTunes store by about three years. That means the only possible use for an iPod for those three years was by copying your CDs onto your computer and then onto your iPod.
I guess under your logic, Apple should have been shut down by the record companies for "using someone elses copyrighted work to make money."
By the way, in the UK, there is no right to make an archival or "private" copy, so every CD copied to an iPod is, in fact, a copyright violation under UK law. Yet, Apple makes millions of dollars from UK iPod sales.
Does the same standard your proposing apply to Apple?
So when Apple released the first iPod, it pre-dated the iTunes store by about three years. That means the only possible use for an iPod for those three years was by copying your CDs onto your computer and then onto your iPod.
Yes, I have several CDs of my private performances of the Beethoven sonatas. Well, there is one of me singing in the shower, too, but I hardly listen to that anymore. Curiously, none of them has sold very well.
Of course, there is "fair use" for the few other commercial CDs in my possession.
No. Under US law, a copyright holder does not have the right to restrict someone from making a copy of a computer program in order to use that program.
I'm under the impression that a user can also alter any legally purchased software to suit their personal needs without being in violation of copyright law.
Do you REALLY believe that?
The RIAA certainly wants us to believe that you can't legally: 1) change the file format of any audio under their thumb; 2) move the file from one media to another. Of course, this is something they defined long after PMPs took hold.
Trying to impinge on the smallest market section for HW/SW is hardly a solid biz plan. Especially when they get dragged into court by a company with a nine-figure savings account.
$129 should be the upgrade price for MacOS with the full version at $1299.
Interesting and amusing idea.
The problem with actually doing it would be that they'd sell practically zero, but piracy would be absolutely huge. Apple would be saying it's OK to run OSX on generic hardware, losing a bunch of hardware sales, but making hardly anything in return.
You guys kept saying apple should offer OS X on PC and the crap but you all never realize that they did that before! and it doesn't work, instead the company suffer more.
They did that before? Um...what?
Guys,
How is this any different than running Windoz on a mac?
Regards, Phil
Macintosh b'Gosh
Because the windows license agreement allows installing and running on any machine that is compatible.
No. Under US law, a copyright holder does not have the right to restrict someone from making a copy of a computer program in order to use that program.
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or"
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
Yes, under U.S. law, a copyright owner can restrict someone from copying a computer program if they don't own the copy.
Apple's EULA states that the buyer of Mac OS X "Leopard" only purchases the media on which the software is recorded. Apple and its licensor(s) retain ownership of the software itself.
Especially when they get dragged into court by a company with a nine-figure savings account.
I believe they have cash in the tens of billions, making that 11 figures.
Are these guys nuts or just stupid?
Are those choices mutually exclusive?
Apple, allow Mac OS X on any PC out there and sell billions of Mac OS X copies.
Even more: open Mac OS X and give it for free to make Windows history in three years!
On the surface this sounds pretty cool, especially the part about killing MSFT. On the other hand, I suspect that the main reason that many of us prefer and use Apple products is precisely because of their dedication to making sure the consumer cannot screw up the OS we like so much. The adage, "Be careful what you ask for...you might get it." could apply here.
Do you happen to remember the "dark ages" when Steve Jobs was not around? Life (with computers) was not nearly as good as it is today. Better pray for his continued good health so that a firm hand continues to guide Apple.
If this is true, I wonder if it would run into problems because it is basically encouraging people to violate EULA agreements. I don't remember if the legalese word is inducement or something else.
There have been many attempts in Congress to pass an "induce" amendment to the copyright law. None have passed.
These laws have been opposed by all hardware manufacturers, because they would make (for example) CD-R manufacturers liable for the CDs people duplicate using the drives. These laws would put entire industries out of business - nobody would be able to sell a CD/DVD burner, a VCR, a photocopier, or even a printer without being sued.
No, the problem with selling OS X on non-Apple hardware is more fundamental: it's declaring open war on Microsoft.
Did I miss a press release somewhere? Who says Apple wants to declare open war on Microsoft?
[QUOTE=kenaustus;1283166]"Inducing Breach of Contract" is the term that caught my eye. While it may
And this EULA is enforcable. A while back my health club use to have movie nights. On Wednesday nights my club would show a couple of movies that they rented from the local Blockbuster. They did not charge admission, they served free popcorn and charged a dollar for a pitcher of beer. ... Well an attorney showed up one day and told them they had to stop it.
This has nothing to do with EULA. No public performance of a movie is allowed without permission from the copyright holder.
The same goes for music. If your business does so much as play a radio in the background, you need to buy performance licenses from the copyright holders. Fortunately, there are three clearinghouses (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) which handle the grunt work, so you don't need to negotiate a dozen licenses with a dozen record labels.
Encouraging infringement is illegal under the copyright laws.
Please cite the law where this is prohibited. I've read Title 17 many times and have never seen anything that prohibits telling someone else how to violate a copyright, much less a EULA.
So when Apple released the first iPod, it pre-dated the iTunes store by about three years. That means the only possible use for an iPod for those three years was by copying your CDs onto your computer and then onto your iPod.
Yes. That's exactly what Apple was advertising. The only legal way to get music on an iPod at that time was to rip your own CDs, or download from a legal service (and there were legal services, even then - like eMusic.)
Of course, there is "fair use" for the few other commercial CDs in my possession.
In the US, that's a valid point. But in the UK, for example, there is no such things as "fair use" for copying CDs. i.e., copying your CD to an iPod in the UK is a copyright violation. Apple sold many iPods in the UK prior to the existence of the iTunes Store (and thus the only possible way to use the iPod was to illegally copy your CDs).
Yes, under U.S. law, a copyright owner can restrict someone from copying a computer program if they don't own the copy.
Apple's EULA states that the buyer of Mac OS X "Leopard" only purchases the media on which the software is recorded. Apple and its licensor(s) retain ownership of the software itself.
True, but Apple sells copies of Leopard every day. After the sale is completed, I get home an discover that some Apple lawyers has claimed I merely entered into a license, but lawyers don't write the law.
Autodesk tried to make the same claim and were slapped down in court:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05...-software-was-
Think of the difference between going to a store to buy a copy of Leopard and leasing a car.
Do you hand over the cash for the car and then, when you get it home discover you've entered a leasing agreement where you have to surrender the car you just bought back to the dealer after three years? No.
Likewise, when you buy the software, do you sit down with a salesperson and sign a document listing when the software must be returned, how much you can use it before paying extra, and that the software must be in good working order when returned? No.
Buying software doesn't feel like a signing a lease (license) and at least one federal judge has said that it's actually a sale and therefore the buyer own that copy. Just because a lawyer writes something opposite in a piece of paper stuck in the box, that doesn't give it the force of law.
That's exactly what Apple was advertising. The only legal way to get music on an iPod at that time was to rip your own CDs, or download from a legal service (and there were legal services, even then - like eMusic.)
Right. Remember "Rip, mix, burn"?
Everyone claiming Open Tech should be crushed for "stealing" Apple's "property", remember that, to the record companies, Apple was just as much guilty of "inducing" piracy and making money off of people "stealing" their "property."
If I refused to accept the license agreement, I would nonetheless still be the legitimate owner of the physical media on which is held a copy of the software, so under pure copyright law Apple would not have the ability to prevent me from installing it on the computer of my choice.
I would like to see where you referenced that from.
In the US, that's a valid point. But in the UK, for example, there is no such things as "fair use" for copying CDs. i.e., copying your CD to an iPod in the UK is a copyright violation. Apple sold many iPods in the UK prior to the existence of the iTunes Store (and thus the only possible way to use the iPod was to illegally copy your CDs).
The only possible way? Did you forget my wonderful, private recordings of the Beethoven sonatas? I listen to them all the time on my iPod. For most everyone else, don't forget the availability of podcasts.
... Apple sells copies of Leopard every day. After the sale is completed, I get home an discover that some Apple lawyers has claimed I merely entered into a license, but lawyers don't write the law.
The exterior says "Requirements: Mac computer..." That seems clear enough to me. No legal mumbo jumbo there. The advertising probably mentioned this was for Macs only, too. In case you're inclined to throw your money at anything shiny, inside the Leopard box, the software license agreement says that if you do not agree to the terms, then do not use the software. If you do not agree to the terms you may return the software to where you bought it for a refund. That seems fair to me!
Autodesk tried to make the same claim and were slapped down in court:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05...-software-was-
Wrong. Read the article more carefully and you'll see that the court's decision had to do with whether the software could be re-sold. That's all. The decision did not throw out restrictions that may be placed on use of the software by the copyright holder.
Think of the difference between going to a store to buy a copy of Leopard and leasing a car.
Do you hand over the cash for the car and then, when you get it home discover you've entered a leasing agreement where you have to surrender the car you just bought back to the dealer after three years? No.
Actually, in many locales a person can terminate a written contract for any reason within a few days of signing. But anyway, I don't see how your example supports your argument.
Likewise, when you buy the software, do you sit down with a salesperson and sign a document listing when the software must be returned, how much you can use it before paying extra, and that the software must be in good working order when returned? No.
Buying software doesn't feel like a signing a lease (license) and at least one federal judge has said that it's actually a sale and therefore the buyer own that copy. Just because a lawyer writes something opposite in a piece of paper stuck in the box, that doesn't give it the force of law.
huh?
Please cite the law where this is prohibited. I've read Title 17 many times and have never seen anything that prohibits telling someone else how to violate a copyright, much less a EULA.
I hd this case bokmarked for this very purpose, but as is the case with the internet, this is what came up:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/...cing.press.htm
I'd like to be able to find it again, if I can remember what to put into Google, assuming that it is findable. I come up with a unmber of different cases, but not the one I'm looking for, so far.