Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261477AbUJ3CQC (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:16:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263270AbUJ3CPb (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:15:31 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:9989 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263655AbUJ3CJb (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:09:31 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Cc: Subject: RE: The requested ruling (Was: BK kernel workflow) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:08:51 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <25765.65.208.227.246.1099069347.squirrel@www.lrsehosting.com> X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:45:27 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:45:32 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2091 Lines: 47 > Ha! I found it faster on Slashdot than from our Librarian. Please note > that I am not a lawyer (I'm the IS guy/server monkey), but am in arms > reach of one at just about all times. I can ask someone to read this, and > see if they agree with the below: > > Here's a link to the ruling in question. To quote Slashdot on it, "Some > highlights from the ruling are: A clickthrough EULA isn't unconscionable > (and thus enforceable); Fair Use rights can be waived in a EULA; First > Sale rights (!) can be waived in a EULA; The DMCA's interoperability > provisions are not a defense." > > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2004/bnetd_30sep.pdf > > BK's EULA is similarly enforceable. > > The horse is dead - you can stop beating it now. Yes, this case does seem to be dead on point. Amazing, at least in the Eastern District of Missouri, sellers of copyrighted works can require you to waive all of your fair use and first sale rights as a condition of the sale. (I'm exaggerating very slightly, because some issues specific to computer software were involved. But it's hard to imagine it would make much difference.) This case involved a 'clik to install' agreement that required you to waive your rights to reverse engineer, among other things. The court was not impressed with DMCA interoperability defenses either, on grounds that I can't comprehend. The really weird thing, IMO, is how the courts were willing to join state contract law with Federal copyright law in very strange ways. For example, copyright law allows you to reverse engineer, and DMCA enforces copyright, so how can you have a DMCA case against reverse engineering because you gave up your reverse engineering rights by contract? There exists no copyright protection against reverse engineering. I make my living selling software, I should rejoice. Yay. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/