Neowin - Should it still be in a Mac users bookmarks?

[ccuk]

The reasoning goes:

1. Apple says: "Here you can use this software if you agree to <rules x,y, and z> and gives us $130. You don't own it but we'll license you a copy."
   
2. You say "Sure, here's $130 and take the box home"
   
3. You install Mac OS X on unapproved hardware.
   
4. Apple says "Hey, rule #1 is 'Macs only': your license is revoked and you have no right to use the software." (you're supposed to return software to the retailer if you don't agree to the terms of the EULA to get a refund)
   
5. You keep using software without a license due to a sense of entitlement, disrespect for the agreement you entered, plain old criminal mania (stickin' it to the man), or some other reason.
   

Using software without a valid license is what most people mean by stealing which IMO is a bad choice of words.

It's more on par with buying a single-user copy and installing it on all the computers in your office: Apple revokes your license to all copies even though you paid for one. In terms of "right to use the software" the argument goes that "unlicensed is unlicensed" and downloading a copy from pirate bay (are they still around?) or borrowing an install DVD from a friend that bought it carry the exact same licenses: none.

Actually stealing a boxed copy of the software from an Apple store would give you a valid license, an unlawfully obtained one, but valid all the same.

Fine and dandy in theory, but EULAs aren't enforceable in every country... Therefore in those countries it is not "stealing" or breaking an EULA. Just to point out that copyright infringement is exactly that... Making an unlawful copy of something without the copyright holders permission. Installing a legally purchased copy of Leopard on non Apple hardware is not stealing, it is not even breaking copyright... It is breaking the EULA.

That is what needs to be made clear.

[the evn show]

Fine and dandy in theory, but EULAs aren't enforceable in every country..

While there is a difference between where you could in principle seek a judgement and where that's actually possible, an EULA tends to be practically unenforceable in nations where you're also unable to bring charges for assault or rape. In those cases it's still on the books in principle.

Unfortunately EULAs are contracts the relevant rules are more-or-less universal as a side effect of nations wanting to be involved in the global economy. While some sections have been deemed unenforceable (ie: limitation of liability is more stringently regulated in EU countries than in the USA) the overriding principle is that when one portion of a contract is deemed invalid the remainder of the contract, so much as possible, remains valid.

When an EULA is deemed unenforceable you lose all right to use the software because that was the only thing giving you a right to use it in the first place.

How can you tell what countries the EULA would carry weight? Well, you can start with WIPO Copyright Treaty signatory nations. While not all of the signatories have ratified the convention (notably: Canada), the majority have. The WIPOCT provides signatory nations with a requirement for US style DMCA provisions.

You can then move on to Berne convention nations - there are around 170-ish signatories of approximately 190 countries (?a few depending on who's counting). The Berne convention provides minimum protections for literary works and thats while rules wrt. copyright infringement are universal. Every Berne Convention signatory has a minimum set of rules in common, and almost every country is a signatory. Notable countries that aren't signatories include:

• Iraq
  
• North Korea
  
• Afghanistan
  
• The Vatican
  
• Palestine
  

Apart from the vatican which has no real economy the non signatory nations tend to have a few things in common: a US military presence, questionable state-hood, and are the subject of UN trade sanctions.

I'm sure after you read the text of The Berne Convention you'll realize that it doesn't specifically address computer software as it was penned by the generation born during the American Civil War. To correct this oversight GATT/TRIPS was a UN/WTO agreement that addressed this issue by defining computer software as literary works and subject to the same protections.

The countries where an EULA would carry no legal weight are few and far between - and it wouldn't be possible to buy an official copy in most of those countries (UN trade sanctions forbid proxy export: you can't get around a ban on selling goods to North Korea by filtering them through an Iranian intermediary.)

it is not even breaking copyright... It is breaking the EULA.

You understand that EULAs are contracts granting you license to rights otherwise reserved by the creator of software, right?

The power of license agreements, including the GPL, comes entirely from copyright law.

I'd recommend Paul Goldstein's book titled "International Copyright". I don't own it because it's ridiculously expensive, but any good college/university library will have it - and most public ones have sharing agreements so they'll be able to get a copy for you.