[CoLoCo] Live by the EULA Die by the EULA

[Paul Hummer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>
>>
>> Ianal, but aren't there some examples when you are NOT allowed to
>>  modify things even when you own them. Perhaps most deal with
>> making it do something illegal. For example, you can't modify and
>> a radio, CD or other device to do more than it's designed for (at
>> least to a point) probably because you are infringing on the
>> licensed air waves or something. Doesn't apple claim you can't
>> modify the iphone - even though people do? Again, ianal but seems
>> I've heard things like this. How that affects ms I don't know.
>
> You notice while Apple jumps up and down and makes allot of noise,
> they don't sue anybody... even the jail break people.  And if
> anybody has a
Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't.  In fact, the
originally iPhone hackers (previous to jailbreak) were served DMCA CaD
papers, and most of them walked off with their tail between their
legs.  However, Apple has backed off because of the increase in
unlocked iPhone sales in Europe, where it was deemed they MUST be
available unlocked (which I would be surprised if the FCC gets close
to doing in it's current state).
> questionable claim, its probably them.  The iPhone though is a
> different type of animal because it steps on both owners rights,
> and the FCC. Though even the FCC has begun to acknowledge owners
> rights in phone unlocking.  (i.e. according the the FCC you can
> unlock your phone, to move it from AT&T to T-Mobile, but you are
> not allowed to do that for other's, i.e. as a business)
>
I'd be interested in seeing the documentation behind this, because I
know of a company in Windsor that does this very thing.
> Somebody also mentioned about DCMA, which is one of the poorest
> pieces of s(*& ever written.  Even then, owners rights have never
> been challenged.  Making it available to others is what they get
> everybody
Once again, the DMCA provides the ability, but we all know that
litigation isn't always the most profiteering business plan (ask the
RIAA).  It's when there is a genuine risk of business IP that
companies get involved.  Try creating a hacked firmware (not a
replaced firmware) of the Apple firmware and see what happens.

I'm gotten the CaD letters for messing with firmware (not Apple's).  I
didn't make the code available to anyone.  Just happened to blog that
I was messing around with it.
> on.  So, the $64M question comes up as: if I am no longer breaking
> the law by reverse engineering Microsoft Windows, and I now
> discover back door interfaces that Microsoft is using to hook into
> their own programs, and I use that knowledge to build a competing
> product... As of now, I broke the law by breaking the EULA.  DCMA
> does not come into effect if I
You don't break a law by violating a EULA.  The government isn't to
get involved in these types of laws, except in the case of
litigation.  Microsoft would have to serve you papers, and then the
case would have to be heard in court proceedings.
> don't make Microsoft's code available.  Nor does copyright laws
Still not true.  Ask the Wine developers why it's so hard to get the
good environment.  It's not because they aren't coders.  It's because
Microsoft watches them.  Sure, you could reverse engineer the code in
your basement, and they would probably never know UNTIL you released
it to the world, but that doesn't mean they can't stop you if they
were to find out.

Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH9oxyHE2KxYYv8I8RAhWlAJ453+W7Tq0BKy1RtpCkizLp4c6UYwCfWdBZ
QKEDgpyEres+HoaUB+FAmXo=
=SXmD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----