Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Any piracy statistics in the US ?? Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 91 13:55:42 GMT Article-I.D.: mantis.JVD8416w164w References: <1991Jun26.142802.20881@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 45 chappell@symcom (Glenn Chappell) writes: > In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a * > >The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the > >software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. > > Well, that's interesting! I wonder what the legal technicalities are > behind that...perhaps you can't legally "sign a contract" by ripping > a plastic wrapper in the UK as you can in the US? Well, like most legal matters it's very complicated, and I'm not a lawyer... but like most people on Usenet, I'm quite prepared to ramble on about it anyway, having done some reading on the subject :-) Basically, there are some long-established rules in UK law about what is and what is not a fair contract. For a contract such as a license agreement to be binding, you must be made explicitly aware of it at the time of sale; it is also the case that unsigned contracts on paper cannot generally be enforced. Since software shops do not require customers to read the license agreement, do not get them to sign it, and do not verbally make the customer aware that they consider him to be agreeing to a contract, shrinkwrap licenses are almost certainly unenforcable in the UK. (There have been test cases for similar situations involving purchase of non-software products, I believe.) > Y'all seem to think I feel serial-number-specific programs would be a > great idea. Well, that's not true, although if such a thing became > common it might have one good effect (in the US, anyway): it would wake > people up to just how silly many software licenses are, and they would > start demanding reasonable ones. This is a good point. Many software licenses say completely ridiculous things. Ashton-Tate licenses are my favourite; one I saw said something to the effect that the user agreed to fund Ashton-Tate if A-T had to fix any bugs in the program! Now, you and I probably know what they *meant*, but would you *sign* a contract like that? > Yes, there are reasonable licenses out there. Yes; credit where credit is due, Borland's licenses are amongst the most reasonable I've seen. mathew