No it isn't at all clear. It would be clear enough if the buyer were purchasing a copy of Microsoft Excel, but not at all clear when purchasing a hardware/software package that includes hardware that is typically used on multiple machines. That software EULA negates a large percentage of the utility of the hardware portion of the package. Granted the buyer should read the EULA and upon disagreeing seek to return the product for a full refund, including all shipping charges. If the seller refuses, then one unilateral decision not involving agreement by both parties deserves another and the buyer should do as he pleases. As an analogy, you buy a new car. A few days after getting it home you read thru the owner's manual and lo and behold you find a EULA stating that the car may not be driven by anyone but the registered owner. Do you abide by the EULA, try to return the car, ignore the EULA, or some other option?
x In this case, there is no distincition and legal and ethical can be used interchangeably. The hard drive came with a limited SE license of the backup software, much like many computers come with SE or LE versions of software to give you a taste of what can be done. If you like it and want to use the full version you buy it. The ethical thing to do would be to license the proper software to backup two machines. There's nothing unclear about that. I'm not sure why this is so unclear to you. Regardless of the legal implications, using something that you have not licensed is taking value from the owner of the property. Stealing. Feel free to use either a legal view or an ethincal view. Heck, choose a religious view. All of them would be clear that it is wrong. I'm not saying I'm pure and ethical and have never done anything wrong. I speed. I run stop signs on my bicycle. I try to be legal across all the machines in my family, but on at least one of them you'd probably find something that I missed. I'm not even suggesting that the original poster shouldn't use it for multiple machines. He's found a way to do so and the transgression is pretty minor. All that said, it is pure rationalization to say the it is either ethical or legal to do so. Tom
That's a terrible analogy. You didn't LICENSE the car, but BOUGHT it. You LICENSE software. Here's a better analogy, also using a car. You rent a car from Avis. They ask you if you are going to be the only driver and give you a rate based on that. While on vacation, you let you 17 year old drive the car and they wreck it. You bought the extended insurance (for a rip off price) and figure you're covered. You're not. You're out the value of the car. You didn't rent the car with the right for your 17 year old to drive it. Avis would not have rented you the car. Substitute your 22 year old. Avis WOULD have rented you the car, but at a SUBSTANTIALLY higher rate, had they know the 22 year old would drive it (they are under 25). If you say you're the only driver and the 22 year old wrecks it, you're still out the car. YOU ARE MAKING RATIONALIZATIONS. Period.
1. Various newsgroups. 2. A photo in the Post Office 3. Soccer, youth or adult, coach, player and referee 4. Somewhere around Harvard, MA (30 mi WNW of Boston) 5. Articles written during the last computer epoch when magazines, not internet, influenced popular opinion 6. Italy, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Minneapolis area, Phoenix, NYC I am not to be confused with the beer-brewing expert in the UK or the one who writes offbeat novels... Ben Myers
Tom, If you're willing to honor a unilateral suicide pact then God bless you. Most of the rest of us know when someone is trying to screw us into buying a software upgrade after the package description of the bundled software indicated it would meet our needs. Worse yet, this software was sold as a value added item to the main purchase which was an external backup drive. Who in his right mind expects a purchaser of an external backup drive to restrict use of it to only one computer? I've paid for every piece of software I'm running here because it is the right thing to do, but right or wrong, it is foolish to let someone like the seller of that drive/software bundle screw you with a hidden gotcha. Too bad the EULA wasn't posted in full. I bet it has a "remedy" clause that includes refund as the only remedy. OK - the OP should send the drive/software back for a full refund and buy from someone else. If the FULL refund is refused, then the EULA goes out the window.
That restriction is the same as applied to most backup programs. Veritas is only installable on One Node, Ghost is only licensable to one hard drive, etc.... The backup software that came with my 320GB External firewire/usb drive doesn't work on my computer, but I bought the drive, not the software. If you understand the license and you continue to use it against the license, then you know you are guilty and are just BS'ing to make yourself feel better about using it against the license rules.
snip< Actually from what I've read you've bought a drive and it came with software. No mention was ever made during the sale as to the software license, only the drive it's self. From the general gist of this thread and my own experience, most of the posters would rather have something like the way IOmega had sold their removable media drives (ZIP, et al). But they were looking to make continuing revenue off of the sale of the removable media. With a hard drive there is no follow-up sales of media and it is in the companies interest to sell you another drive and/or software. The drive is not restricted, the software is. As a no cost add-on the sofftware is not the primary item for sale. If you don't like it, don't use it. There are a number of alternatives available and I'm sure that there may at some future date even bulk licensing may be available for value added software that comes with the drive. Some smart marketing type is bound to figure it out eventually. Then of course the software will no longer come as a value added item, but as a retail item available just like the old client-server licenses. This is the fuzzy part, what are your rights over a free added value item? One recent post did show a link to a website with links to a number of alternatives to using the software that came with your drive. http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/software_tools.htm
Right away, that's your interpretation of the buyer's intent. Lots (most?) people have just one computer and some of them want to make backups. Besides, I doubt Maxtor would object to selling multiple Certainly not, it's a trivial matter to set up a demo for a judge/jury consisting of a PC and the external HDD, then backing up the PC onto the external HDD. You have no argument. Including gas & tolls, meals, lodging, etc.? Talk about a straw man! No one offers that, you're just rationalizing theft of software. Again, just your interpretation / personal desire regarding the external drive. I agree, BTW, that the entire EULA situation is stacked against the user; but others have posted that they have been upheld in court multiple times, so we're stuck with them.
I remember the book analogy from 15-20 years ago, i.e., even if you have 2 computers, you can only use the software on one at a time. Software companies, of course, didn't like that and developed the EULA we all know & love. (of course, the computer situation and capabilities have also changed radically in the meantime) You want to share what you're smoking, Ben, it's obviously pretty potent stuff? <g> I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers how maniacally Lotus tried to make 1-2-3 copy proof.
You conveniently skipped over the refund part. If a refund is available, send the bundle back for a refund. If no refund is available, THEN I would feel justified in ignoring the EULA at least as far as use on multiple machines I personally owned.
Not exactly my *interpretation* - if I recall correctly he *said* he wanted to make multiple backups. I wouldn't ask for those, nor would I consider them reasonable. I might ask for the cost of the call to obtain an RMA number. Nope, I'm "rationalizing" use of the software on systems I own. Exactly. That's how external drives are very often used. Can an automaker attach a EULA - either to the car or to the software in the onboard computer - preventing you from driving on roads with a cement surface? Why not? The reason why they wouldn't dream of doing that is because as soon as the EULA was read and disagreed with they would be required to accept return of the car for a refund if the buyer so wished. We might not be able to stop software vendors from using EULAs, but we can stop one sided screw jobs by immediately seeking a refund when we disagree with a EULA. If they refuse a promptly sought refund because of disagreement with their EULA, then their EULA is not enforceable in court. It's simple contract law. If you read a contract and then go ahead with your side of it, you are agreeing to the contract in its entirety. If you are presented a contract (EULA) that limits functionality not disclosed as limited at time of sale, you either protest or accept those limits. If there is no remedy for a protest, then the contract is null and void.
No I didn't and it would not make any difference. Just because YOU FEEL that you should be cable to violate the license doesn't change the license.
Well, back then, computer trade rags had a lot more clout than they now have, and you could rely on software reviews in PC Magazine, PC World, etc etc to give a fairly honest assessment of products. Reviewers would identify copy pretection, licensing issues, etc. This kept software companies a little more in line. EULAs have always existed. The problem for consumers created by the computer industry is SNEAKWARE EULAs, i.e. EULAs which can be read only at the time when the software is being installed. The secondary problem is the same one that plagues the insurance industry (especially medical) and the entire legal profession, namely, language that obfuscates. Ever read one of them EULAs? Ever try to understand what they really are saying? ... Ben Myers
That's an interesting statement in this context. If you think that the "EULA situation is stacked against the user", it wouldn't be too far-fetched to infer that you also think that the court decisions regarding EULAs are unethical. (Unless you of course think it's ethical to create laws and legal precedence "stacked against" someone or some group.) If you consider these decisions unethical, it is kind of inferred that an interpretation of their legality different from the court decisions could be considered ethical. Gerhard
