"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-9058BB.15175117072008@shawnews... > In article <20069$487fc384$9497@news.teranews.com>, > "Crab Apple" <crab@pple.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-203501.14424617072008@shawnews... >> > In article <1a6f8$487fb4ac$27579@news.teranews.com>, >> > "Crab Apple" <crab@pple.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message >> >> news:alangbaker-E7BBB1.13453117072008@shawnews... >> >> > In article <db761$487f9d34$3963@news.teranews.com>, >> >> > "Crab Apple" <crab@pple.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:alangbaker-ED7F35.11131617072008@shawnews... >> >> >> > In article <39e7b$487f6dc0$329@news.teranews.com>, >> >> >> > "Crab Apple" <crab@pple.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Kirby" <KG@songbrd.biz> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:KG-89D601.21395316072008@netnews.comcast.net... >> >> >> >> > In article <8342f$487e6427$13849@news.teranews.com>, >> >> >> >> > "Crab Apple" <crab@pple.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> "nospamatall" <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> news:mzsfk.26373$j7.470513@news.indigo.ie... >> >> >> >> >> > Crab Apple wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I have rights beyond what Apple chooses to list in its >> >> >> >> >> >> software >> >> >> >> >> >> terms, >> >> >> >> >> >> and where the two conflict my rights trump Apple's terms. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing being able to do something and having a >> >> >> >> >> > right >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> > do >> >> >> >> >> > it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, I'm not. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From your rabid responses to those who try to point this >> >> >> >> >> > out >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> > you, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Rabid responses? What's rabid in anything I wrote? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it appears that this mistaken view of yours is causing no >> >> >> >> >> > small >> >> >> >> >> > amount >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> > frustration. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm neither frustrated nor rabid. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Just realize the fact that you have no rights other than >> >> >> >> >> > those >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > people >> >> >> >> >> > who run the world choose to give you. If people understood >> >> >> >> >> > that, >> >> >> >> >> > things >> >> >> >> >> > might be different. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Apple Inc. doesn't run the world, nor do they dictate my >> >> >> >> >> rights. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > In this case, that is Intellectual Property Rights, Apple does >> >> >> >> > dictate >> >> >> >> > what you >> >> >> >> > can do, just like any other licensed product. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It says I have to pay for the software and not use it on more >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> computer at a time. Anything more is abuse of copyright laws. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'll bet you think that if you hire an artist to photograph >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> > something you >> >> >> >> > wanted photographed and you paid for it, you think you "own" >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > photography >> >> >> >> > and you'd be wrong. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would he have the right to tell me which brand of photo album or >> >> >> >> picture >> >> >> >> frame I can display the photograph in? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A photographer can certainly specify to what use you may put a >> >> >> > photograph licensed from him. >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you answering my question above with a "yes?" >> >> > >> >> > Yes. >> >> >> >> You may think so, but I'm using any picture frame I want to. >> > >> > That's because the particular terms under which you purchased that >> > photo >> > don't preclude it. >> >> That's because nobody could enforce such terms. > > They absolutely could.
No they couldn't.
>> >> > Now answer my question: >> > >> > Can you use a picture license for use in one magazine in an entirely >> > different one? >> >> No, but what does public display and distribution of pictures have to do >> with running software on a personal computer for oneself? Your >> analogy >> makes no sense. > > It makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't.
> Intellectual property is *licensed*.
I see you have to drop back to an abstract level. Distribution of pictures are not license by opening the package they come in. They're not licensed by some text included with them that says if you use them you agree to certain terms.
You have to agree to the terms of > the license unless those terms are in violation of the law of the land.
Now you're starting to get it, in the last part of your sentence. Only terms the law allows can be enforced.
> You've yet to show a single thing that indicates that Apple's license is > in violation of anything.
Since I never claimed they were in violation of anything, I have no need to show anything.
