Windows Media Player user license extensions

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: David Hansen <davidh@spidacom.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: 03 July 2002 16:59
Subject: Re: Windows Media Player user license extensions


> On 3 Jul 2002 at 13:53, Owen Lewis wrote:
>
> > I think there is an
> > onus on the licensor to state fairly the terms of the licence before a
> > sale is contacted where it is practical to do so.
>
> I disagree with software companies trying to escape from their
> obligations by claiming that they are not selling something. That is
> entirely bogus, but also another discussion so i will leave it.

Well, can we start from the premise that neither of us wrote the law, nor
enacted it. However, we both have to live with it until such time as it is
changed. It holds the same meanings for both of us (because it is lawyers
and not thee and me who, having written it, interpet its meaning.

In short, we have to abide with the concept and practice of software
licencing. Of course there are those who, like Marx, believe that, "All
property is theft". It's not simple (nor is it kind or, often, even politic)
to demolish such beliefs. Belief is self-levitating.

> Fairly must include being clear, concise and in plain language. Banks
> have lost my custom (not that it's worth much) because they failed to
> explain what "reasonable precautions" actually are. Waffle is no use.
> Borland used to have reasonably clear terms that would be a good
> starting point.

Sadly or not, contracts (licences too) are most often drafted by lawyers for
(yes, you've guessed it) interpetation by other lawyers. We are stuck with
this. However, principles of commonsense and fair dealing often prevail but
do not always do so. If it were always so we could kill all the lawyers and
bin the contracts, nicht war?
>
> > It is then
> > unreasonable to cry 'unfair' if the licencee does not bother to read
> > what he is given.
>
> That depends on the above.

> It is perfectly reasonable to say something is unfair if it is
> deliberately written to discourage people from reading it. Huge
> amounts of small text, some too small to read, is not an attempt to
> be clear. It is an attempt to stop people reading it.

That's a bit weak. How small is small and how big is big? If one really
can't read big words writ small, thet one can surely ask for the same words
to be provided writ big(ger). The real problem comes with not being able to
read the big words at any size (which brings us back to lawyers and their
many uses).

> ....It is perfectly
> possible to be clear and concise. I think the Plain English campaign
> can give lessons on how to do this.

Trust me, lawyers train in it. Which is why a well written contract is exact
in meaning and comprehensive in effect - so 'tis said.

Owen