View Single Post
Old 02-17-2010, 06:15 PM   #113
Shaggy
Wizard
Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shaggy's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon View Post
And the courts have weighed in with Blizzard vs MDY Industries. Even if the language is unenforceable in any other way, it establishes that if you breach it there is a de-facto copyright, not licence, violation.
Sigh. Only because in this specific case, there is no ownership. You are trying to draw too much of a generalization from this.

Section 117 lays out limitations on the rights that a copyright holder can claim in a EULA, but in order to qualify for 117 the user must own the software.

The only way an EULA trumps 117, is if the user is licensing the software and doesn't own it.

In the Blizzard case, the judge ruled that the EULA holds because they were licensing the software and 117 doesn't apply. You're making a logic error if you think that means that software is never owned with a EULA present. That same district court has ruled in the past that very thing, and ruled in favor of ownership despite EULAs.
Shaggy is offline   Reply With Quote