Demon & DeCSS

[Dave Bird]

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

In article <000101c0286a$01b509a0$3d9b7ed4@compaq>, David Swarbrick
<david@swarb.freeuk.com> writes
>
>Not quite.
>Different considerations apply if the licence is for free and if it is for
>an under-value, but in insolvency law, anything less than full value is in
>principle capable of being set aside in some circumstances.
>Paying one pound makes a difference, but may not be conclusive.


 OK. I can see that licensing is no use because it hangs upon 
 my ownership.  I can license you to "borrow my car any Friday 
 afternoon" because it's my car, and I can say "but you must 
 bring it back clean and undented" also because it's my car.
 (If you walk into the carpark and friendly Finance Ltd have 
 repossessed then you can say "I have an arrangement to use 
 that car", and they say "not with us you haven't").

 Surely if I "give co-equal ownership of their version to anyone
 interested in having the document, with a wish that they will
 likewise pass on ownership to others" when I am fully entitled
 to.... I'm not already sitting on the debts which will likely
 result in bankruptcy.... then that is fairly irrevocable. 
 Especially in the courts of their country.

 Surely the bankruptcy courts cannot RETROSPECTIVELY set aside
 transfers made when the bankruptcy was neither in effect nor
 clearly probable.  Especially the courts of the recipient's
 country are not likely to see him cheated in this way.
 I hear what you say that token payment may or may not succeed, 
 it presents only an obstacle to be argued. 


In article <000001c0286a$00541a10$3d9b7ed4@compaq>, David Swarbrick
<david@swarb.freeuk.com> writes
>There are several issues involved.
>
>For this purpose, the user of software needs a continuing licence. He may
>have come to own version of the software, say on a CD, but since each time
>he runs it, it must be copied into memory, he needs a licence - either
>contractual or statutory, each time he does so. Is a licence executory, a
>promise not to object on each occasion in the future when the software is
>copied, or is complete at the time granted?
>
>Is the grant by deed? This is the traditional way - in english law  - of
>distinguishing between a gift which is revocable, and one which is not?
>
>What is the purpose of the grant of licence? Any intent to defeat creditors
>may make teh gift defeasible.
>
>Is the grantor insolvent at the time of the grant, or does he become so
>afterwards.
>
>Is any consideration given?
>
>What reliance is placed upon the promise?
>
>It is likely also that a court will actually look at the practical reality
>of whether a licence could be revoked. What would be th ereal-life effect of
>any revocation?

 thanks for clarifying the issues.


 
- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBOdIJwX8v/Y5zkfRPEQKxpgCeK48WiclNiSDhuW23yKgr/Ltkf6EAoJhw
FVM9hkX8HbvTiizarE8NSzSg
=+mEA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----