clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.01.2013 01:05, schrieb Warp:

> > Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then. Unless a
> > copyright-based license explicitly says that you can use the copyrighted
> > product, the default is that you can't. It doesn't matter how you get it.

> That is nonsense. Copyright governs the right to copy (hence copyright), 
> not the right to use a piece of software.

That is nonsense. You are clinging to the word "copy" in "copyright" and
ignoring what the copyright laws actually say.

As wikipedia puts it, "copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most
governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights
to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy",
but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the
work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may
perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other
related rights."

Besides, even if we clinged to the physical act of copying, just because
the software can be downloaded from their website doesn't mean you have
the right to, without permission.

> so if the EULA doesn't hint at a different licensing model, it 
> is prudent to assume that possessing an authorized copy of the software 
> also implies possessing the right to use it.

I think you meant to say "imprudent".

You don't seem to understand the concept that if a work does not state
anything about who can use it, then the default is that nobody (except
the author) can use it.

"I downloaded it from the author's website, therefore it's legal" is just
an excuse to ignore the law. Pure and simple.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message