undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbelorn4y ago0 comments

(Jumping into the discussion with an example)

Let's say a person buys a train ticket from A to B, let say from Brussels Airport to Brussels Central Station. The ticket states that in order to be valid, you need to pay a second fee, a special fee because this is the airport transportation route. The person refuses and goes onto the train anyway. What crime did the person commit? A ticket violation or Fare dodging?

You get a similar situation when it comes to parking. If a person has a valid parking ticket but are parking when they are cleaning the street (i.e. during a no-parking period), the violation is not a parking ticket violation. It is a parking violation, just like any other parking without permission. The fact that the person has an ticket doesn't change anything.

Breach of contract against the ticket holder is very unlikely. Breach of contract against the ticket seller is possible. In the end, the most likely outcome of a person without a valid ticket is that they get treated exactly the same as a person without a ticket at all.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

dataflow4y ago· 1 in thread

I can't really tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing, and I'm not even sure a ticket violation is a "crime"? But regardless, I don't understand the need to stretch analogies from other domains when there is so much case law out there specifically about EULAs. I'm pretty sure it's well-established [1] that EULAs can be enforceable contracts and breach of them can be treated as a breach of contract. This doesn't depend on there being copyright violations, e.g. there can be different licenses depending on commercial usage vs. non-commercial usage despite the copying being done in exactly the same manner. There should be no need to draw analogies from fare dodging to see what the law says here. I find countless links on this when Googling (and I'm basically leaving a different link in each comment), but see for example [1].

[1] https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/licensing-syndication/84...

belornOP4y ago

An EULA is not a copyright license, nor does it give permission. The practice of EULA comes from Shrink wrap contracts, i.e. a contract that dictate how a product is used after a person have physically bought it. The origin of those are Standard form contracts.

One major difference between copyright law and contract law is that one is defined under international agreement, and the other is defined by each nation. There is no Berne Convention for contracts and EULA's. There is no obligation between nation to recognize EULA "rights".