"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >On Wednesday 29 October 2008 06:45:19 pm Ben Finney wrote: > >> […] one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option > >> to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs. > > > >Sure they can. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then > >you don't have the right to have a copy of the work. In fact, you > >didn't even have the right to make the copy in the first place.
Yet these conditions are presented on works where, often, the recipient *didn't* make the copy; they received it from some other party through sale or other distribution, and the terms were *not* offered as a condition of sale but instead discovered afterward (if at all). > >Now, I'm not claiming you can agree to something you haven't seen, > >but if you DO NOT agree, then you don't have the right to have it > >in the first place You seem to be claiming that such conditions can be applied retroactively: after legitimately obtaining the work and agreeing to all conditions presented at that time, one can then be held to an *extra* “agreement” that one was unaware of? > Reductio ad absurdam ... This is another argument, yes. Though, at this point, I suspect Sean (or someone else with legal experience) will point out the common fallacy of assuming the law operates logically :-) -- \ “The errors of great men are venerable because they are more | `\ fruitful than the truths of little men.” —Friedrich Nietzsche | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]