You have breached your license

• 
  Termination of the license is not what you want, because this doesn't transfer you rights to do anything with the software. Even though it would void the license agreement and therefore you aren't bound to it anymore they still are the copyright owners.
  
  If they breach their license it does, however, enable you to sue them, probably with the outcome that RedGate would have to supply you with a non-crippled version of V6 which you are entitled to.

  AvonWyss February 02, 2011 17:46

  - 0 +
• 
  I think the initial commenter's statement says that the DMCA gives you (in the USA, that is) rights to do with the software what you want, even if those rights are not transferred under the terms of the contract. If he is right, Red Gate (a British company, I think) is going to be hurt not only for their obvious lack of integrity, but also their ignorance of US intellectual property laws.

  sosiosh February 02, 2011 17:55

  - 0 +
• 
  I wish my lawyer cost less than $35 per consultation because surely this makes no rational sense to engage a lawyer over this sum of money.

  traskjd February 02, 2011 18:00

  - 0 +
• 
  Many class action lawsuits involve groups of people who individually would not stand to benefit more than the lawyer fees if they won. That said, if enough people got together to pay for a single lawyer to bring an action, any profit Red Gate might make on charging their $35 fee could be erased rather quickly. Also, if a lawyer is able to make the case about the DMCA giving people the rights to use the software in ways that exceed the license, then Red Gate will also lose.
  
  Think of it this way. If enough people pay $1 to cover lawyer costs, and get the software for free otherwise, it is still $34 cheaper to them than what Red Gate wants to charge for it.

  sosiosh February 02, 2011 18:07

  - 0 +
• 

  traskjd wrote:

  I wish my lawyer cost less than $35 per consultation because surely this makes no rational sense to engage a lawyer over this sum of money.

  I'm in a bit of an odd situation with lawyers as it is (look to the left) so it wasn't much of an issue to ask.

  JAssange February 02, 2011 18:07

  - 0 +
• 

  JAssange wrote:

  I just thought you may like to know that I've had my lawyer examine the recent proceeding and timebombing and forcing me to pay to upgrade has violated your own license, essentially terminating it. Under the DCMA I now have the right to do whatever I want to it short of reselling it, including patching the timebomb functionality out. I applaud your ability to annoy so many people in so little time with such a stupid decision and thank you for not bothering to write licenses properly.

  
  That's not true. If the license has been terminated then you have absolutely *no* rights to the software. Not even to use it.
  
  Thank the stupid copyright act for that. (You also might want to engage competent legal counsel).

  mat February 03, 2011 03:40

  - 0 +
• 

  mat wrote:

  JAssange wrote:

  I just thought you may like to know that I've had my lawyer examine the recent proceeding and timebombing and forcing me to pay to upgrade has violated your own license, essentially terminating it. Under the DCMA I now have the right to do whatever I want to it short of reselling it, including patching the timebomb functionality out. I applaud your ability to annoy so many people in so little time with such a stupid decision and thank you for not bothering to write licenses properly.

  
  That's not true. If the license has been terminated then you have absolutely *no* rights to the software. Not even to use it.
  
  Thank the stupid copyright act for that. (You also might want to engage competent legal counsel).

  I think I have fairly competent legal counsel. You may want to read over the DCMA and various consumer protection acts.

  JAssange February 03, 2011 14:58

  - 0 +
• 
  To clarify one point about the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), according to Wikipedia,
  

  It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.

  
  In other words, this is a measure that protects copyright holders. I guess it's best known in the context of music.
  
  Hope that helps.

  jeremy.parsons February 04, 2011 08:22

  - 0 +
• 

  jeremy.parsons wrote:

  To clarify one point about the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), according to Wikipedia,
  

  It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.

  
  In other words, this is a measure that protects copyright holders. I guess it's best known in the context of music.
  
  Hope that helps.

  
  "The hills are alive with the Sound of Music!"

  JDelekto February 05, 2011 09:54

  - 0 +

Add comment

Please sign in to leave a comment.