5 ms·

> Every time you access a file share, you request explicit authorisation to copy any of the files in that share? I think you'd have trouble finding any court wh

> Every time you access a file share, you request explicit authorisation to copy any of the files in that share? I think you'd have trouble finding any court who accepted that this was the intended outcome. If you don't own the files, yes, you do need authorization. I think courts would not have trouble with that concept. > A EULA can require you to give up rights that you would otherwise have - in many cases it's legal to engage in reverse engineering, but in order to gain the right to use the software you may have agreed not to do that. So even if it would be fair use to analyse the binaries, if I can't obtain those binaries without either violating copyright law or agreeing to a EULA, I'm not in a position to do so without putting myself at risk. If copyright law didn't apply to the binaries in the first place then I wouldn't need to agree to the EULA in order to obtain them, and there'd be no problem. You are dodging and deflecting. As you said yourself, if copyright doesn't apply, you can obtain copies without worrying about the EULA or copyright. Well, fair use is an exemption to copyright. If you do something under fair use, it does not matter if you agree to a EULA or not; if your use is under fair use, you can do it. Period. So I gave you a way around copyright by using GitHub's own argument that it is fair use. If you won't take it, that means you don't believe what you are saying because you are not willing to put your actions where your mouth is. Yet I am willing to front $1000 if you do. So clearly, you are not arguing in good faith, especially since your argument is about the consequences if copyright is done away with. In this one case, where GitHub claims that copyright is done away with, you won't take action, which means all that you are saying is just empty air. Because you are not arguing in good faith, I think I am done with this conversation. And I will take the bet; I will challenge Microsoft to issue their legal opinion on this.

mjg59 5y ago
> Well, fair use is an exemption to copyright. If you do something under fair use, it does not matter if you agree to a EULA or not; if your use is under fair use, you can do it. Period. No. A contract can involve me agreeing not to do something I would otherwise be permitted to do (eg, an NDA is a contract in which I agree that I won't engage in certain forms of constitutionally protected speech). If I agree to a EULA that says I won't do things that would be permitted by fair use, that's probably enforceable. > In this one case, where GitHub claims that copyright is done away with They don't claim that! They claim that what they're doing is permitted by copyright law, which is a very different thing. > If you don't own the files, yes, you do need authorization. I think courts would not have trouble with that concept And how many people have been successfully prosecuted (and that prosecution upheld) under this interpretation?
- ghoward 5y ago
  > No. A contract can involve me agreeing not to do something I would otherwise be permitted to do (eg, an NDA is a contract in which I agree that I won't engage in certain forms of constitutionally protected speech). If I agree to a EULA that says I won't do things that would be permitted by fair use, that's probably enforceable. You do not get it. I am assuming you did as you originally mentioned and got a hold of a copy of Windows without agreeing to the EULA. If that's the case, then you don't need to worry about the EULA, according to your argument at the beginning of this discussion. Then you can train the model under fair use. Unless, of course, you actually don't believe your own arguments where you claimed that you can get a copy of Windows without agreeing to the EULA, in which case, your entire first argument is moot, and you admit that EULA's do put implicit contracts on people that copy the code, even without copyright, which means that I am right. Once again, you are dodging. You keep trying to come up with "gotchas," but you're really digging your own grave here. > They don't claim that! They claim that what they're doing is permitted by copyright law, which is a very different thing. They are claiming an exemption to copyright law that is spelled out in the copyright law. Thus, they are claiming the same thing as no copyright in this particular case. > And how many people have been successfully prosecuted (and that prosecution upheld) under this interpretation? Ever heard of Aaron Swartz? He was charged under the CFAA and with grand larceny, among other things.
  - mjg59 5y ago
    > Ever heard of Aaron Swartz? He was charged under the CFAA and with grand larceny, among other things. He was charged with unauthorised access to a network (he wasn't affiliated with MIT), and with violating JSTOR's explicit terms of use regarding what types of access were authorised. This is not analogous to someone having authorised access to a computer without any other terms of service. And, uh, it's a case that's pretty notable for not having been successfully prosecuted. If you want to make shit up, go ahead, but this clearly isn't a productive discussion.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      https://thetech.com/2011/11/18/swartz-v131-n53 https://thetech.com/2011/11/18/swartz-v131-n53 And it was only not prosecuted because he committed suicide. If you're going to reject true facts, then this discussion isn't productive.

mjg59 5y ago

> Well, fair use is an exemption to copyright. If you do something under fair use, it does not matter if you agree to a EULA or not; if your use is under fair use, you can do it. Period. No. A contract can involve me agreeing not to do something I would otherwise be permitted to do (eg, an NDA is a contract in which I agree that I won't engage in certain forms of constitutionally protected speech). If I agree to a EULA that says I won't do things that would be permitted by fair use, that's probably enforceable. > In this one case, where GitHub claims that copyright is done away with They don't claim that! They claim that what they're doing is permitted by copyright law, which is a very different thing. > If you don't own the files, yes, you do need authorization. I think courts would not have trouble with that concept And how many people have been successfully prosecuted (and that prosecution upheld) under this interpretation?

ghoward 5y ago
> No. A contract can involve me agreeing not to do something I would otherwise be permitted to do (eg, an NDA is a contract in which I agree that I won't engage in certain forms of constitutionally protected speech). If I agree to a EULA that says I won't do things that would be permitted by fair use, that's probably enforceable. You do not get it. I am assuming you did as you originally mentioned and got a hold of a copy of Windows without agreeing to the EULA. If that's the case, then you don't need to worry about the EULA, according to your argument at the beginning of this discussion. Then you can train the model under fair use. Unless, of course, you actually don't believe your own arguments where you claimed that you can get a copy of Windows without agreeing to the EULA, in which case, your entire first argument is moot, and you admit that EULA's do put implicit contracts on people that copy the code, even without copyright, which means that I am right. Once again, you are dodging. You keep trying to come up with "gotchas," but you're really digging your own grave here. > They don't claim that! They claim that what they're doing is permitted by copyright law, which is a very different thing. They are claiming an exemption to copyright law that is spelled out in the copyright law. Thus, they are claiming the same thing as no copyright in this particular case. > And how many people have been successfully prosecuted (and that prosecution upheld) under this interpretation? Ever heard of Aaron Swartz? He was charged under the CFAA and with grand larceny, among other things.
- mjg59 5y ago
  > Ever heard of Aaron Swartz? He was charged under the CFAA and with grand larceny, among other things. He was charged with unauthorised access to a network (he wasn't affiliated with MIT), and with violating JSTOR's explicit terms of use regarding what types of access were authorised. This is not analogous to someone having authorised access to a computer without any other terms of service. And, uh, it's a case that's pretty notable for not having been successfully prosecuted. If you want to make shit up, go ahead, but this clearly isn't a productive discussion.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    https://thetech.com/2011/11/18/swartz-v131-n53 https://thetech.com/2011/11/18/swartz-v131-n53 And it was only not prosecuted because he committed suicide. If you're going to reject true facts, then this discussion isn't productive.