Tom Vogt wrote:
> Ed Gerck wrote:
> > I meant the US, as the case is in the US. However, it is interesting to know what
> > happens in other countries -- and it reinforces the idea that things like
> > "uniform dispute resolutions" do not work. The question here, however, would be
> > if the norwegian law also allows dissemination to the public of the results
>obtained by
> > reverse engineering when reverse engineering is denied in a contract?
>
> if the contract is void (in that respect), the question is irrelevant.
The distinction between private use and public dissemination might be relevant
to define if the contract is void or not. Take the Stac vs Microsoft case. Would
Microsoft have lost in Norway, and piracy be allowed? I doubt it.
> it mainly depends on what the software says. if it says anything like
> "this site is blocked because it contains kiddy porn" I'm fairly sure
> any wrongly blocked site CAN claim defamation (or whatever).
Agreed. And that is why I suggested that this case could have been
a lot more useful for "truth in advertising" purposes if proper procedure
would have been followed.
> if it comes not to
> questions of copying, but to finding out how it works, where exactly is
> the huge difference?) these barriers still are artificial and arbitrary.
Not if you profit from it or if you decrease the producer's rights
by publishing what he did not publish. Remember, this issue has two
sides -- there are also legitimate authors.
> anyways, the pure gut of sueing someone because he took away your
> product astonishes me. it's like saying live on the news "we don't want
> people to take our stuff apart (they might find out just how crappy it
> is)".
This is the dilemma facing civilized societies -- how to defend your right
without infringing on another's rights. To find out how crappy a product
is, oftentimes just the description suffices -- wild claims, etc. But, in
some cases this is not enough. Then, proving one or two counterexamples
may suffice. This is IMO what could have happened here and it would
have been much more effective.
Now, if you are against "sueing someone because he took away your
product", then what would the remedy be? To allow anyone to take
away anyone else's product? Kneecapping? Ignoring the rights of the
producer does not help the consumer, as history shows. We need a
balance.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
