[Free-sklyarov-uk] a win for sanity! and free speech

[Jim Peters]

Julian T. J. Midgley wrote:
> (lots of stuff)

Okay, I hear what you're saying.  But since software now falls under
copyright law, a software company would be crazy not to use it.  And
since they now have the right to control distribution through their
copyright, presumably they can legally say, "You can't have it unless
you sign this license agreement".

This is all complicated in this particular case because no-one signed
anything - and in the EULA situation because you're asked to agree to
something after you've already bought it (with some implicit but
unspecified agreement in that sale).


This idea of implicit agreements is interesting to me.  If we take the
CD issue, then according to copyright in this country, record
companies have the sole right to authorize copies.  But they never
give permission to anyone explicitly.  However, implicitly they do,
because they sell us equipment to enable us to make copies (e.g. Sony
selling CDs, HiFi systems and blank tapes).  ("What do they think
we're using them for?", we might ask).

Does that mean that there is an implicit agreement between the
manufacturer and the consumer that making copies of music is okay ?
That in fact the whole balance of the price of CDs is weighted with
that in mind ?  And that they are now backing out of their side of the
agreement without notifying us ?

Maybe this is an interesting legal angle to follow.

Jim

-- 
 Jim Peters                  (_)/=\~/_(_)                        Uazú
                          (_)  /=\  ~/_  (_)
 jim@                  (_)    /=\    ~/_    (_)                  www.
 uazu.net           (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_)           uazu.net