>> Just to reiterate, I already accepted the only *legally and ethically
>> binding* contract on the transaction that resulted in my getting
>> a copy of the software.
>>
>Surely also, since you haven't accepted the 'new' contract you can
>still (under basic copyright law) modify the software etc. and thus
>bypass the bit that asks you to accept the new terms anyway.
Apparently such modification isn't inherent (or implicit) in
the sort of transaction I'm talking about, so, no, this line
of argument doesn't wash. (I've tried it, though. ;-)
The simplest line of argument is "Sure, I clicked ACCEPT, even
though I did not accept the terms. I already negotiated the
terms with another party, the result being that I now own a copy
of the software. Any interactions I have with the software afterwards
cannot possibly be construed as a legally binding contract, since
that software is not a duly appointed agent for that other party."
I still don't see how copyright law can prevent me from either *reading*
the (binary!) code, and thus reverse-engineering it; or having
my computer jump into the *middle* of it, perhaps avoiding the
license screen; or, *most* interestingly, have a *different*
automaton execute the program, such that the screen is avoided
altogether.
But, while these are interesting arguments as well, to me, the
simplest and most direct one (as well as being the easiest for
anyone to undertake) is what I've already stated: the computer
program is not a party to a contract negotiation, under those
circumstances, so it can be "lied" to without fear of criminal
or civil penalties. Further, I'm sure God Himself would have
no problem with that.
tq vm, (burley)
