Did you take a look at MDY vs. Blizzard? The take-away point is that, in a precedent-based legal system, what the actual law says is largely irrelevant.
Okay, a less cynical take: the legal contortion here is that 117 only applies to the owner (and that's why 117(c) was added) and, as you hinted at, companies nowadays seem to be allowed to claim that all software is merely rented, simply by stating it, even in the absence of an agreed EULA, and even though there is no legal ground to make such a claim.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: You?
Date: 2012-02-01 12:23 pm (UTC)Okay, a less cynical take: the legal contortion here is that 117 only applies to the owner (and that's why 117(c) was added) and, as you hinted at, companies nowadays seem to be allowed to claim that all software is merely rented, simply by stating it, even in the absence of an agreed EULA, and even though there is no legal ground to make such a claim.
RIP doctrine of first sale.