|
...And "ownership" as a concept is only present if there are NO other agreements between the parties, post-sale, otherwise it's licensed. And yes, it does make section 117 more or less worthless. Welcome to overly broad American court rulings.
It may have ruled differently in the past, but that is clearly not how it has ruled in this or other recent cases. Also, in at least two of the other cases you're talking about a narrow view which only applies to physical items with "incidental" software, while the others dealt with shrinkwrap (PRE-sale) licences, not POST-sale licences.
I am not in any way presenting what "I think", this is how the court has ruled.
("I think" I'm fortunate I'm not a US citizen and our laws on software ownership mean that the EULA is 99.9% tissue paper)
|