3 ms·

Does anything in copyright law entitle Apple to impose conditions on the use of software it gives away for free online (e.g., that it may be run only on Apple h

Does anything in copyright law entitle Apple to impose conditions on the use of software it gives away for free online (e.g., that it may be run only on Apple hardware)? It would seem analogous to me writing a book and offering it free online but licensed only to be read in a comfy chair with a nice cup of tea. Maybe I'm in the furniture business and my livelihood depends on everyone's compliance. I bring this up because I wonder if fanboyism is clouding our collective judgment where we might otherwise greet these so called terms of service with the contempt they so richly deserve.

jacobparker 7y ago
> free https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
torstenvl 7y ago
> Does anything in copyright law entitle Apple to impose conditions on the use of software it gives away for free online (e.g., that it may be run only on Apple hardware)? No. Nothing in copyright law allows this. However, everything in contract law allows this. Copyright law forms the underlying background situation only. Under 17 U.S.C. § 106, the default is that only the copyright owner may make copies (including, e.g., the copy made when installing the software or the copy made into memory when running it). However, those exclusive rights may be licensed to others. (Under 17 U.S.C. § 117, a software licensee, or the lawful owner of a copy of the software, may always copy the software to install/run or to make an archival copy.) Licenses are governed by contract law. Contract law typically consists of an offer, acceptance, and some thing of value traded by each side. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 17(1). The thing exchanged can be a promise, a forbearance (i.e., a license), a conditional promise, or any number of things. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 71-81. In this case, the license to copy the software to your internal storage and from there into RAM is offered conditionally. In return, you promise not to run it on non-Apple systems. If you break your promise, the conditions of Apple's license to you are triggered and your license terminates. All of that is governed by contract law. The backstop to that, though - the legal stick - is that now you're using an unlicensed copy and continuously copying it into RAM to use it. That is what opens you up to copyright violation liability.
- wayneftw 7y ago
  I thought there needed to be 2 parties in agreement to enter a contract. I don't know much about how Corellium does business, but if they can get their hands on iOS images without specifically agreeing to a contract - is there a contract? Perhaps the whole EULA thing is old news but I'm still not sure if I'm bound to every condition stated in a EULA when my cat clicks "Agree"... I thought at one point, the courts ruled that EULAs are pretty toothless. These are honest questions - I have no clue.
  - zimpenfish 7y ago
    > if they can get their hands on iOS images without specifically agreeing to a contract - is there a contract? If I can get my hands on your car without specifically agreeing a contract to pay for it, ...
    - saghm 7y ago
      The issue with this argument is that there can only ever be once instance of my car in existence at a given time. If you take my car, I don't have it. If you download a copy of my software that I give away for free and use it in a way I don't want you to, that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) from using it. That's not to say that there isn't some argument that using software against the terms of a license should be illegal; I just don't think the analogy to physical goods is a very good one.
      - torstenvl 7y ago
        What's the difference between you owning a car and you having the right to use a communal car? The core of the legal concept of property is the right to exclude others. This is an academic philosophical lens to view it through, but it's fundamental to understanding how the law treats these things. "Property" isn't a physical thing itself, it's your right to exclude others. (This, by the way, is also a useful lens through which to view Fourth Amendment jurisprudence). The property you're "stealing" in a copyright infringement case isn't the bits themselves. The property is the right to exclude others from copying, publicly performing, etc. By doing so without a license, you're denying the software licensor the ability to exclude you.

jacobparker 7y ago

> free https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

torstenvl 7y ago

> Does anything in copyright law entitle Apple to impose conditions on the use of software it gives away for free online (e.g., that it may be run only on Apple hardware)? No. Nothing in copyright law allows this. However, everything in contract law allows this. Copyright law forms the underlying background situation only. Under 17 U.S.C. § 106, the default is that only the copyright owner may make copies (including, e.g., the copy made when installing the software or the copy made into memory when running it). However, those exclusive rights may be licensed to others. (Under 17 U.S.C. § 117, a software licensee, or the lawful owner of a copy of the software, may always copy the software to install/run or to make an archival copy.) Licenses are governed by contract law. Contract law typically consists of an offer, acceptance, and some thing of value traded by each side. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 17(1). The thing exchanged can be a promise, a forbearance (i.e., a license), a conditional promise, or any number of things. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 71-81. In this case, the license to copy the software to your internal storage and from there into RAM is offered conditionally. In return, you promise not to run it on non-Apple systems. If you break your promise, the conditions of Apple's license to you are triggered and your license terminates. All of that is governed by contract law. The backstop to that, though - the legal stick - is that now you're using an unlicensed copy and continuously copying it into RAM to use it. That is what opens you up to copyright violation liability.

wayneftw 7y ago
I thought there needed to be 2 parties in agreement to enter a contract. I don't know much about how Corellium does business, but if they can get their hands on iOS images without specifically agreeing to a contract - is there a contract? Perhaps the whole EULA thing is old news but I'm still not sure if I'm bound to every condition stated in a EULA when my cat clicks "Agree"... I thought at one point, the courts ruled that EULAs are pretty toothless. These are honest questions - I have no clue.
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  > if they can get their hands on iOS images without specifically agreeing to a contract - is there a contract? If I can get my hands on your car without specifically agreeing a contract to pay for it, ...
  - saghm 7y ago
    The issue with this argument is that there can only ever be once instance of my car in existence at a given time. If you take my car, I don't have it. If you download a copy of my software that I give away for free and use it in a way I don't want you to, that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) from using it. That's not to say that there isn't some argument that using software against the terms of a license should be illegal; I just don't think the analogy to physical goods is a very good one.
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      What's the difference between you owning a car and you having the right to use a communal car? The core of the legal concept of property is the right to exclude others. This is an academic philosophical lens to view it through, but it's fundamental to understanding how the law treats these things. "Property" isn't a physical thing itself, it's your right to exclude others. (This, by the way, is also a useful lens through which to view Fourth Amendment jurisprudence). The property you're "stealing" in a copyright infringement case isn't the bits themselves. The property is the right to exclude others from copying, publicly performing, etc. By doing so without a license, you're denying the software licensor the ability to exclude you.