|
August 24, 2010
I hate being barraged with a constant stream of copyrighted words which make me "liable"!
One of the many electronic annoyances in life consists of the endless "updates" which are sometimes requested, other times demanded, and in the case of my antivirus software, performed automatically and without notice in the most annoying, computer-freezing manner. Lately I have been hassled by a box screaming at me to "Update Adobe Flash Player." As I was more concerned with my second cup of coffee than anything else, I finally decided that I might as well comply. Perhaps out of morbid curiosity, I did something I never, ever do; I clicked on the Adobe product license agreement (best known as "EULA" or "end-user licensing agreement"). There are different licenses for every Adobe product, all which are translated into just about every language known to man, but at the bottom of the starting page, there appears the following, startling edict: Home use of Macromedia branded productsSo that means that if I open a pdf file on this computer, I can't go upstairs and open one on the computer there without closing down this one? Why is that? And did I "agree" to it simply by clicking and installing the software? Apparently so, as this has been standard industry procedure for many years, and companies like Adobe have hordes of lawyers who can in theory use the Copyright laws to pounce on violators. But there is just something that rankles me about being told what not to do, especially when I am told automatically and "agree" without even knowing. How many of us routinely engage in copyright violations? I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone with a computer has from time to time committed a copyright law violation. And in theory, the "victims" of our violations could sue millions of Americans for statutory damages. Statutory damages range from a few hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands:Coupled with the ubiquity of technical violations, the Copyright Act lends itself to arbitrary and tyrannical "enforcement" actions by greedy lawyers who just want to milk the system and get their fees paid. As Clayton Cramer has made clear in a number of posts, we are all at risk. Especially bloggers. People who are online are easy targets for avaricious attorneys. If you don't like the abuse of the copyright laws, don't just get mad. Do as Glenn Reynolds suggests, and DONATE. At the risk of sounding like an anarchist or pirate, I think Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said this: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."Especially when the inventions consist of words -- speech -- which are endlessly broadcast to the world, even as they are at the same time generating endless opportunities for lawyers in search of "liability." I'm sick and tired of word liability. Copyright law tyranny is inconsistent with free speech. posted by Eric on 08.24.10 at 09:38 AM
Comments
I don't see any such section on their online EULA. Also, that notice applies only if you used their Open Options licensing system, which is for nonprofits. That clause doesn't apply to anyone for two reasons: 1) Nobody gets Flash Player via AOO licensing. So... Meh. Sigivald · August 24, 2010 01:46 PM Thanks for pointing that out. I did not know what Adobe's "Open Options licensing program" was, and I assumed it meant all of their licensed software. (I didn't see anything on that page saying that it only applies to non-profits, but I'm sure you're right.) Eric Scheie · August 24, 2010 02:37 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2010
July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Just what Michigan needs now -- a bathroom litmus test!
A Cheech and Chong litmus test? Later alligator! Bloomberg's baffling dots defy my powers of analysis! Race War All the "noose" that fits.... Beat Whitey Night "Palin's endorsement hasn't helped" Really? "para endulzar su dia" "bullets used in the drug war" Religion of peace?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Some vendors slip EULA changes into security updates. Very uncool.
Apple has done this more than once.
And BTW, you really want this Adobe update. It's for a very nasty security vulnerability.