[free-sklyarov] Seybold session yesterday

[Alex Katalov]

I think - that we need to pay more attention in such debates like
todays, that "copyright" and "license agreement" are not the same
thinks.

"Copyright law" exists in most countries even if we don't like
it. And at the same time "license agreement" may be (and very often
_is_) against human rights, local law, unconstitutional, unlawful
etc...  Yes - the author of the book can get money for it, if he wants
this - but he can't say me how I _must_ read this book if I already
pay for it!

Somebody may not like the example with _white only_ limitation - but
even if the license agreement says so "easy" - that I should read
purchased book only while sitting in my bath room, at daylight time
and by single eye, and I learn this only after I pay for this book -
this license agreement is obviously false from _any_ point of view !!!


AK>> OK - and what if this "contract" (license agreement) says that only
AK>> _white_ people should read this book?

D> Excelent point Alex!!! :)
D> In fact ANY restriction is bad. People should not be prevented to do
D> wrong things however they should be responsible for what they do ...
>>From this point of view such a contract (for _white_ only) is possible
D> but in this case _non white_ people should get compensation and i
D> think the best compensation would be to allow them to decide who can
D> and who cannot read the book. Most likely they would allow to read it
D> for all. So in fact *_white_ only contract* is nonsence.




-- 
Best regards,
 Alex                            mailto:akatalov at elcomsoft.com