Oxford Aviation / Transair CD-ROM Fair Use Legal Issues
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'd have to take this to a lawyer, but, as I said in an earlier post:
.
I would read the rest of that post; as I understand the law, you do not own the software contained on the media and therefore if you do not wish to use it, and do not accept the EULA, you must return it to the retailer for a refund.
Scroggs
If the EULA is not readable before the software packaging is opened (which may be achieved by a page on the licencer's website), it is possible that parts of the EULA may be unenforceable. That said, the rules of copyright are fairly explicit and can be researched quite easily
I would read the rest of that post; as I understand the law, you do not own the software contained on the media and therefore if you do not wish to use it, and do not accept the EULA, you must return it to the retailer for a refund.
Scroggs
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not interested in posts telling us how to get around EULAs and I will not let Pprune be a vehicle for advocating software piracy.
I advise you all to be aware of these EULAs, and to assume that they are legal until a precedent has been set that clarifies the situation.
As for the cases you quote, and the anecdotal info, they are US and not particularly relevant.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if it's illegal, should everything on pprune that informs about a practice that's illegal be censored?
Scroggs
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not negotiable, or up for discussion. You want to discuss how to engage in illegal activities, you can do it elsewhere.
It's a big difference between informing about loopholes or illegal practices and to encourage others to engage in illegal activities.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, your post gives the impression that you wish to learn, or inform others, about how to illegally extract software from copyright material. That will not happen on this board.
You inferred that the expression 'getting around EULAs' somehow means that such a practise is legal. It is not, as I understand the law.
The seem to think that this is an appropriate forum for discussing the finer points of pirating computer software. It is not, nor will it ever be.
There is no free speech here; you are allowed to post and/or read only that which we (the owners and moderators of Pprune) deem appropriate material for our site. If you have a problem with that, you are free to leave. If you attempt to 'get around' our rules and conditions, you will be banned from this site.
Scroggs
You inferred that the expression 'getting around EULAs' somehow means that such a practise is legal. It is not, as I understand the law.
The seem to think that this is an appropriate forum for discussing the finer points of pirating computer software. It is not, nor will it ever be.
There is no free speech here; you are allowed to post and/or read only that which we (the owners and moderators of Pprune) deem appropriate material for our site. If you have a problem with that, you are free to leave. If you attempt to 'get around' our rules and conditions, you will be banned from this site.
Scroggs
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested in discussing whether or not it is legal to not adhere to the wording of the EULA. I've never in any way encouraged anyone to deliberately brake the law. Facts should be presented and everyone should be able to make a decision of their own if the practice is likely to be legal or not. This is even more important in a case like the one discussed here which is a grey area. It's very hard to discuss this matter without mentioning both legal and illegal practices. I've never mentioned pirating computer software.
Well, that's your interpretation and what you think... and probably some of the sponsors of Pprune as well...
Sorry for being cynical but I was very surprised that a subject that really matters to many readers of this forum can't be discussed as freely as we can do about much else.
You inferred that the expression 'getting around EULAs' somehow means that such a practise is legal. It is not, as I understand the law.
Sorry for being cynical but I was very surprised that a subject that really matters to many readers of this forum can't be discussed as freely as we can do about much else.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can discuss the finer points of the legalities of EULAs as much as you like, though we've done it enough here; this is not the appropriate forum to do so. We even have a forum on Pprune that is expressly designed to address computer and internet issues, where you will find experts with a great deal of experience of the software indusry ready to debate with you all you like. But you will still not be allowed to discuss how to reverse-engineer software or otherwise avoid copyright issues.
It's the Computer & Internet forum.
Scroggs
It's the Computer & Internet forum.
Scroggs
Last edited by scroggs; 20th Mar 2006 at 18:06.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dwshimoda
So what's the difference between all the books that are sold on ebay, and software?
Once the security code is broken it would be quite easy to burn a load of copies in jig time. With the book of say 500-1000 pages, standing over a photocopier reprinting each page would not be so easy. And if you are prepared to buy a 2nd hand copy rather than a legit copy, you are more likely to try and copy it for your mates or even, dare I say it, for profit.
Just my tuppence worth, but I do agree with a previous poster in that a lot of time and effort goes into making these CD's and quite rightly the owners should protect their property, in the future it may lead to more and improved computer based learning packages being produced.
Might be a few folks going to hell 
BestAviation.net
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London, UK
Age: 41
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do I write so long posts!?!
This is quite an interesting post as I believe it touches an area of the aviation training industry that many other non-aviators struggle with as well (ex. music industry, moves etc).
On one hand I understand OAT trying to protect their investment as I’m sure these software packages are quite expensive to develop. On the other hand I find it a bit stingy to try and prevent a poor flight student from selling it on ones he is done with it. All technicalities and lawyer lingo aside – what if he just sold the physical CD? Clearly he has ownership over this and is free to do with it what he pleases. If the buyer decides to put it in his computer (thus breaching the EULA) should then be a matter between the owner of the CD and the creator of the software.
On a slight digression I know of flight schools that make the students buy the Jeppesen student pilot package from them and refuse them to obtain them through other sellers. OAT is not alone in trying to squeeze an extra pound or two out of their students.
On the reverse engineering bit there is quite an interesting fellow one should look closer at – Jon Lech Johansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Jon), otherwise known as DVD Jon, managed to crack the protection device on the DVD plates (to the industries big furry). And before you get exited scroggs – this has nothing to do with his methods of cracking it or reverse engineering.
What happened to DVD Jon was that the music and movie industry launched a big lawsuit against him (for obvious economical reasons). Jon won the lawsuit filed against him and the court drew (for us) two interesting conclusions:
1) Production of such software is not illegal – same way as selling a crowbar to a burglar isn’t – as long as it was not intended for illegal use. Ok – so that has very little to do with the OAT CDs. On the other hand number 2) has….
2) It is reasonable to allow a user to make backup copies of his purchased software, thus bypassing a copy protection created by a manufacturer is not an illegal act as long as the copy is for personal use and solely used to backup the licensed software (this means you cannot give or sell the copy or original ones you have done this). This is also why MP3 files are still in legal circulation – It is the media you purchased the rights to use. As long as you remain the user it is immaterial how it is streamed.
OK – So it doesn’t help you get rid of the OAT CDs and make some of your money back – but I thought it would be interesting to mention. After all this is a growing problem for most media producers regardless of what medium they sell – and rightfully so. On the other hand I believe you should be allowed to resell your product as used – of course given that it is the original copy. You never hear about the music industry cracking down on the sale of used CDs.
On a last note it can be interesting to mention other gray area usage – ever experienced in class that a video was played (ex. one of the many inflight videos)?
How many times have you seen pictures pinched from aviation picture websites in presentations held by your instructor?
Or – random pictures “borrowed” of the internet in a presentation?
As all schools are commercial establishments and groundschool is a commercial revenue creator such usage is actually very illegal without a licensed agreement between the creator/rightful owner unless this is specifically specified elsewhere. It all seems very innocent – in reality it isn’t.
Alright – all this law stuff has made be drowsy….
Btw, do you know what they call 10 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
….a good start….
Off to study the OAT Met CD. My roommate bought one – and as I am not allowed to use it….I have to watch him watch his precious CD – all for the sake of legality.
On one hand I understand OAT trying to protect their investment as I’m sure these software packages are quite expensive to develop. On the other hand I find it a bit stingy to try and prevent a poor flight student from selling it on ones he is done with it. All technicalities and lawyer lingo aside – what if he just sold the physical CD? Clearly he has ownership over this and is free to do with it what he pleases. If the buyer decides to put it in his computer (thus breaching the EULA) should then be a matter between the owner of the CD and the creator of the software.
On a slight digression I know of flight schools that make the students buy the Jeppesen student pilot package from them and refuse them to obtain them through other sellers. OAT is not alone in trying to squeeze an extra pound or two out of their students.
On the reverse engineering bit there is quite an interesting fellow one should look closer at – Jon Lech Johansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Jon), otherwise known as DVD Jon, managed to crack the protection device on the DVD plates (to the industries big furry). And before you get exited scroggs – this has nothing to do with his methods of cracking it or reverse engineering.
What happened to DVD Jon was that the music and movie industry launched a big lawsuit against him (for obvious economical reasons). Jon won the lawsuit filed against him and the court drew (for us) two interesting conclusions:
1) Production of such software is not illegal – same way as selling a crowbar to a burglar isn’t – as long as it was not intended for illegal use. Ok – so that has very little to do with the OAT CDs. On the other hand number 2) has….
2) It is reasonable to allow a user to make backup copies of his purchased software, thus bypassing a copy protection created by a manufacturer is not an illegal act as long as the copy is for personal use and solely used to backup the licensed software (this means you cannot give or sell the copy or original ones you have done this). This is also why MP3 files are still in legal circulation – It is the media you purchased the rights to use. As long as you remain the user it is immaterial how it is streamed.
OK – So it doesn’t help you get rid of the OAT CDs and make some of your money back – but I thought it would be interesting to mention. After all this is a growing problem for most media producers regardless of what medium they sell – and rightfully so. On the other hand I believe you should be allowed to resell your product as used – of course given that it is the original copy. You never hear about the music industry cracking down on the sale of used CDs.
On a last note it can be interesting to mention other gray area usage – ever experienced in class that a video was played (ex. one of the many inflight videos)?
How many times have you seen pictures pinched from aviation picture websites in presentations held by your instructor?
Or – random pictures “borrowed” of the internet in a presentation?
As all schools are commercial establishments and groundschool is a commercial revenue creator such usage is actually very illegal without a licensed agreement between the creator/rightful owner unless this is specifically specified elsewhere. It all seems very innocent – in reality it isn’t.
Alright – all this law stuff has made be drowsy….
Btw, do you know what they call 10 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
….a good start….
Off to study the OAT Met CD. My roommate bought one – and as I am not allowed to use it….I have to watch him watch his precious CD – all for the sake of legality.
