> 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

> 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.