3 ms·

It does if you have "agreed" to a EULA that forbids reverse engineering. I don't know if you know this, but there are already EULA's that can reverse engineerin

It does if you have "agreed" to a EULA that forbids reverse engineering. I don't know if you know this, but there are already EULA's that can reverse engineering.

mjg59 5y ago
If copyright didn't apply to software, why would you agree to the EULA?
- ghoward 5y ago
  Do we have a choice with some of the software we have to use?
  - mjg59 5y ago
    What law would they use to stop you? Just modify the binary to skip the agreement. If they don't hold copyright over the code then you're not breaking the law in doing so.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      I will be breaking contract law. EULA's still hold teeth without copyright because they fall under contract law, not copyright. Edit: I would like to add something about licenses and contract law. While FOSS licenses can also be contracts (https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html#its-not-clear-what-mit-and-bsd-are-legally https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...), if copyright does not apply, then users (and companies) do not have to accept the license in order to use the software because they already have access to it since the source is open. However, with closed source software, the user does not get access until after they accept the EULA. This means that full contract law applies to the user, regardless of copyright on software. That is why closed source software wins if copyright does not apply: because it makes an end run around copyright anyway.
      - mjg59 5y ago
        Why would I have to accept the contract to obtain the software? I can just copy it off another machine where someone else accepted the contract.
        ghoward 5y ago
        I would bet that the EULA covers that too by saying that if you copy it and give it to someone else, or allow someone else to copy it from you, that person is also under the EULA. Just checked: the Windows EULA [0] does not allow you to copy the software. And since it is a contract, that clause does not need copyright to be in force. So the person copying it to you can be targeted by Microsoft, and if you copied Windows without that user's permission, you are probably going to be charged with a violation of the CFAA. [1] These companies have been practicing law for longer than you. Don't underestimate them. Also, in my opinion, you are not really arguing in good faith. That is probably because my arguments really tear your article apart, and you are trying to find some way to discredit what I am saying. You can try, but I guarantee you that companies have a lot of experience protecting their closed source software. If copyright does not apply anymore, I also guarantee you that they will find, or probably already have found, a way to protect their software without it. Edit: The Windows agreement specifically says that using the software is an implicit agreement to the EULA, and Adobe's [2] says the same thing. Thus, even if you copy from someone else's computer, you are under the EULA. [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/OEM/Windows/10/UseTerms_OEM_Windows_10_English.htm https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/OEM/Windows/10/UseT... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [2]: https://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/captivate.html https://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/captivate.html
        mjg59 5y ago
        > So the person copying it to you can be targeted by Microsoft, and if you copied Windows without that user's permission, you are probably going to be charged with a violation of the CFAA. If I'm given permission to use a computer, and I then use that access to duplicate binaries that are not subject to copyright law and which the level of access I have been greanted gives me access to, which provision of the CFAA do you think I'm violating? > Edit: The Windows agreement specifically says that using the software is an implicit agreement to the EULA, and Adobe's [2] says the same thing. Thus, even if you copy from someone else's computer, you are under the EULA. That's something you can enforce if use of the software is controlled by law, and you can refuse me permission to use it if I don't agree to the EULA. If the code isn't copyrightable then you have no ability to do that - I'm entitled to use it without agreeing to the EULA, and asserting that I'm implicitly agreeing to it carries as much weight as me asserting that you agree to pay me $1000 by reading this comment.

It does if you have "agreed" to a EULA that forbids reverse engineering. I don't know if you know this, but there are already EULA's that can reverse engineering.

mjg59 5y ago

If copyright didn't apply to software, why would you agree to the EULA?

ghoward 5y ago
Do we have a choice with some of the software we have to use?
- mjg59 5y ago
  What law would they use to stop you? Just modify the binary to skip the agreement. If they don't hold copyright over the code then you're not breaking the law in doing so.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    I will be breaking contract law. EULA's still hold teeth without copyright because they fall under contract law, not copyright. Edit: I would like to add something about licenses and contract law. While FOSS licenses can also be contracts (https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html#its-not-clear-what-mit-and-bsd-are-legally https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...), if copyright does not apply, then users (and companies) do not have to accept the license in order to use the software because they already have access to it since the source is open. However, with closed source software, the user does not get access until after they accept the EULA. This means that full contract law applies to the user, regardless of copyright on software. That is why closed source software wins if copyright does not apply: because it makes an end run around copyright anyway.
    - mjg59 5y ago
      Why would I have to accept the contract to obtain the software? I can just copy it off another machine where someone else accepted the contract.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        I would bet that the EULA covers that too by saying that if you copy it and give it to someone else, or allow someone else to copy it from you, that person is also under the EULA. Just checked: the Windows EULA [0] does not allow you to copy the software. And since it is a contract, that clause does not need copyright to be in force. So the person copying it to you can be targeted by Microsoft, and if you copied Windows without that user's permission, you are probably going to be charged with a violation of the CFAA. [1] These companies have been practicing law for longer than you. Don't underestimate them. Also, in my opinion, you are not really arguing in good faith. That is probably because my arguments really tear your article apart, and you are trying to find some way to discredit what I am saying. You can try, but I guarantee you that companies have a lot of experience protecting their closed source software. If copyright does not apply anymore, I also guarantee you that they will find, or probably already have found, a way to protect their software without it. Edit: The Windows agreement specifically says that using the software is an implicit agreement to the EULA, and Adobe's [2] says the same thing. Thus, even if you copy from someone else's computer, you are under the EULA. [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/OEM/Windows/10/UseTerms_OEM_Windows_10_English.htm https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/OEM/Windows/10/UseT... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [2]: https://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/captivate.html https://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/captivate.html
        mjg59 5y ago
        > So the person copying it to you can be targeted by Microsoft, and if you copied Windows without that user's permission, you are probably going to be charged with a violation of the CFAA. If I'm given permission to use a computer, and I then use that access to duplicate binaries that are not subject to copyright law and which the level of access I have been greanted gives me access to, which provision of the CFAA do you think I'm violating? > Edit: The Windows agreement specifically says that using the software is an implicit agreement to the EULA, and Adobe's [2] says the same thing. Thus, even if you copy from someone else's computer, you are under the EULA. That's something you can enforce if use of the software is controlled by law, and you can refuse me permission to use it if I don't agree to the EULA. If the code isn't copyrightable then you have no ability to do that - I'm entitled to use it without agreeing to the EULA, and asserting that I'm implicitly agreeing to it carries as much weight as me asserting that you agree to pay me $1000 by reading this comment.