On 11/2/05, William Coulter <wrcoulter30@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes!!!!! I had to read the article again, and it said that the User agreement DID NOT
> state anything about a rootkit. That is why I think that this is a criminal case. They have set
> the rules but now we can us them against them. I beleive that we have a very, very strong
> criminal case.
The user agreement doesn't necessarily have to say anything about a
rootkit. It can simply state that it will install software on your PC
("software" is a very broad term that can refer to any kind of
program, including rootkits). Basically if you don't want to install
their software to listen to their CD, you are not authorized under the
license to listen to the CD on your computer, but you certainly could
on any regular CD player. If you don't want the rootkit on your
system, don't install the software.
Now, if there is some kind of antispyware or other law that states
that the publisher MUST declare in its user agreement that it is
installing a rootkit or some other form of invasive system
reconfiguration, you *might* have a case.
The idea of "owning" a song when you buy it on a CD or tape is a bit
misleading. You are being granted a license by the publisher of the
song to possess a copy of the published material for your personal
listening and enjoyment. The publisher, however, still owns the song,
and ownership or title to the song does not transfer to you when you
buy that CD or download that file from iTunes or other online music
shop of your choice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:34:18 EDT