Author: Robin Smith
Date: 17:43:34 09/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2003 at 20:12:35, Mike Byrne wrote: >On September 08, 2003 at 20:07:38, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On September 08, 2003 at 19:08:04, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On September 08, 2003 at 18:51:45, Mike Byrne wrote: >>> >>>>On September 08, 2003 at 13:41:49, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 07, 2003 at 18:08:14, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>My definition is quite simple. If the software violates the licenisng >>>>>>agreement, it is illegal. I have read the UBI Soft licensing agreement and like >>>>>>most agreements, distrubuting licensed modified code to others (registered or >>>>>>not registered ) users is prohibited. That is exactly what deadking is, it is a >>>>>>distributution of modified code that was governed by the licensing agreement >>>>>>which explicitly forbade that. >>>>>> >>>>>>But perhaps, I am wrong -- so I will pose the question to the author of the "The >>>>>>King" and one of our esteemed members of CCC, Johan de Koning, about the >>>>>>legality of "deadking". >>>>>> >>>>>>Johan - are your views of the legality of the "deadking" - modified "the king" >>>>>>engine code that allows the user to use the "The King" engine in the Fritz >>>>>>enviroment without ever requiring the OPK code? >>>>>> >>>>>>Best, >>>>>> >>>>>>Michael >>>>> >>>>>I'm not entirely up to speed on the issue being discussed here, but just some >>>>>food for thought: The issue of distributing modified licensed code really isn't >>>>>important, because it can be gotten around. Someone can just as easily make a >>>>>program from scratch that will "patch" Chessmaster (or any other program), and >>>>>there should be nothing illegal about distributing the patching program. Yes, it >>>>>is a small technicality, and the intent is still the same, but there is nothing >>>>>illegal about a program written completely from scratch that modifies a memory >>>>>location or modifies a file. If the author is careful to make the user select >>>>>which file to change, then there is nothing illegal about the program or it's >>>>>distrobution. >>>>> >>>>>Basically the point is that the creator of such >>>>>cheats/hacks/"fixes"/patches/etc. can create them legally and put the burden of >>>>>illegal actions onto the user (who obviously doesn't care about legallity in the >>>>>first place). >>>> >>>>You raised an interesting point. The illegal action transfers to the user who >>>>applies the patch, who obviously does not care. In the spirit of our charter, >>>>it does not change things one iota - it is still an activity of questionable >>>>legality and it will still be a forbidden topic on CCC best pursued under >>>>r.g.c.c where there is no such charter. >>> >>>I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that applying the patch is >>>illegal. >>>Dave >> >>Dave you are correct. It isn't illegal, in spite of what the license agreement >>says. No license agreement can legally limit reasonable use of a product, in >>spite of what the license agreement's wording may say. If I buy a printer, and >>the printer manufacturer has a license agreement inside the box that states I >>can only use original manufacturer printer cartridges, it will not stand up in >>court. Neither would the UBI soft agreement. > >I see you must be a lawyer or judge. No. But I have read about similar cases. >The truth , we never know for sure what >the court is going to find in any a case. In fact, that is why people go to >court - because they all believe they are "right" and the other guy is "wrong". >Isn't that true? Yes, that is true. And when companies in other indistries have tried similar restrictions in the past, they have always lost. Music companies tried to make it illegal for people to make audio tapes from vinyl records, for their own use. They lost. Movie companies tried to make it illegal for people to make VHS tapes of copyrighted movies playing on the TV, for their own use. They lost. Publishers tried to make it illegal to make Zerox copies from books, for their own use. They lost. Right now record companies would love to make the creation of mp3's illegal. But they don't even try. It wouldn't work. People have a reasonable use for mp3's besides piracy (public distribution of mp3's is another matter entirely). If you buy something, you have a right to use that thing. UBI Soft lawyers put that restriction in their license agreement because it doesn't do them any harm to do so, not because they think it would stand up in court.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.