purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,647
- 6,528
- 126
I don't think so. I actually had a job interview recently that dealt with software that scanned people's PCs at the very low HD disk level, and as long as the person gave you consent to search it, you could search it.
It is software used in digital forensics.
Don't see how putting spyware on your computer is any different than bugging your home.
Edit: I really don't think these ridiculously long TOS agreements would hold up in court, anyway.....it is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to ever read all that fine print first.
Edit: I really don't think these ridiculously long TOS agreements would hold up in court, anyway.....it is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to ever read all that fine print first.
Then you shouldn't agree to it.
Would you sign the contract for buying your home without reading it?
Different scale yes, but pretty much the same legally.
This is very different. There's nothing illegal about software scanning your computer and sending data to the mothership if you agree to install it and know that's what it's going to do.
Please explain what you believe is illegal here.
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,935
- 3,914
- 136
Point is, they intentionally make this kind of stuff so long that nobody will read it, and burying some underhanded spyware clause 10 pages deep is simply them trying to hide it.
On the surface, I would usually say yeah, everyone should read the TOS, but it's gotten out of hand. I really don't think some of these long novels of TOS's would hold up in court, simply because it's not reasonable to expect someone to read that much fine print.
And a home mortgage contract is not the same, because you pay your lawyer to read it for you.
Of course, I'm just making a general statement about TOS's here...I could care less about this particular program because I don't download music or movies.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,820
- 14,032
- 136
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: paulxcook
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
However, according to blorge.com, the software actually searches the computer for other copyrighted files and sends the information back to Media Defender.
</end quote></div>
That must be illegal. Unless they somehow bury it in the TOS?</end quote></div>
Even if they did bury it in the ToS, it would probably not hold up in court as a valid term of service. Also, it would probably violate all those spyware laws that have gone up.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
However, according to blorge.com, the software actually searches the computer for other copyrighted files and sends the information back to Media Defender.
</end quote></div>
That must be illegal. Unless they somehow bury it in the TOS?</end quote></div>
Even if they did bury it in the ToS, it would probably not hold up in court as a valid term of service. Also, it would probably violate all those spyware laws that have gone up.
Bugging your home is something that law enforcement agencies do, with warrants and legal go ahead (they're supposed to anyways), and mafia types do it too. I wonder which one this falls under? As far as entrapment this sure can be seen as entrapment. They are acting on behalf of the copyright holders and are sharing the material, which means the copyright holder is sharing the material.
It's kind of akin to a private company saying, hey want to buy some illegal drugs from us? OK, now we are going to call the police. Nevermind that we gave you the drugs.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
They could prove with a reasonable degree of certainty by comparing filenames and calculating a CRC on the suspect files and comparing to known pirated files. It's pretty unlikely that when ripping and compressing the same movie, two people would end up with the exact same compressed file and use the exact same filename.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Ahhhh, so lets suppose for a moment that it's okay if it's in the TOS. The TOS is a contract that I agree to with the software vendor.
However, "uhh, my 12 year old son installed the software. He's not legally allowed to sign that contract. Do you have something to verify ages before people agree?"
However, "uhh, my 12 year old son installed the software. He's not legally allowed to sign that contract. Do you have something to verify ages before people agree?"
That's an interesting question that I've wondered about. To the best of my knowledge that hasn't been tested in court. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd love to hear about it.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
Thats what I was thinking. Entrapment and Invasion of Privacy.
But then again, knowing the MPAA their army of lawyers either checked this out in advance or is standing by to settle quickly with all the counter suits.
It would be if they searched your computer without your knowledge (in Washington state, anyway), but I'll bet the software has a long, cryptic EULA that says exactly what it does in complicated/vague lawyer-speak.
JC people NO IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT as they do not force you to download anything.
And, NO it is not illegal if you agree to their software that says it is going to send info back.
You guys do realize that all editions of Adobe Photoshop after CS send back to adobe info from your computer that tells them if you pirated it or not? That's why every pirate program will tell you to have a firewall and not allow Adobe Programs to contact the internet.
Guess what? Perfectly legal and it is explained in the TOS.
thescreensavers
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2005
- 9,916
- 2
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter