OSNews

Signatures are not always needed to bind a contract.

Willfully choosing to remain ignorant of the terms of the contract offered by the other party in the exchange won't do you much good when you're sued for breach of contract.

You don't go into a car dealer, choose any car, then walk out with it after paying, with the dealer expecting you to sign the ownership paperwork in the glove compartment and mail it to them later on.

It's the same with finance plans; you sign a document before purchase so that the company has legal standings to claim that money from you. They would not let you walk out of the door with the product, expecting you to pay them because a sign that can only be read once the product is open and used says so.

Kroc: Whilst it may be a contract you wish to abide to, what of all the people who never read it?

What about people who never read actual contracts? What about people who don't read the laws? What about people who aren't paying attention when they get into verbal contracts? Etc... Should they be bound by these things?

A common statement made about this is "ignorance is no excuse." In addition, with EULAs, these are often BOLD (not the typeface) and IN YOUR FACE, at the very beginning. So its obvious that they are there. That's more than can be said for a number of laws that bind us.

For example, when you go for a walk with your dog, do you see a big printed sign that tells you what you are allowed to do and not do while you are out on a walk? What about what dogs you are allowed to have or not have in the local area? Etc... Yet, if there is any laws about this in your local area, chances are you do not see such a sign. Yet you'll definitely be held to those laws if they exist.


Kroc: If the EULA says that the person has to jump off of a cliff, should they be sued for not jumping, having not read the EULA?

What if an actual contract says a person has to jump off a cliff? What if there is a law that says that? What if there's a verbal agreement to do so? Etc...


Kroc: A Contract you agree to long before you use the product.

Did you explicitly agree to be bound by said laws to walk your dog? Doubtful. Yet, they will bind you.

You are actually given more opportunity to read, accept, or reject many EULAs than you are to read, accept, or reject laws and yes sometimes even contracts. As a result using these things as a reason for them to not be legal doesn't seem valid to me in the least.

You are actually given more opportunity to read, accept, or reject many EULAs than you are to read, accept, or reject laws and yes sometimes even contracts.

So there's a way to read a EULA without opening the shrink-wrapped package?

The point is moot, however, as it's not that EULAs are legally binding in the first place (and may be illegal in certain countries, such as the UK).

archiesteel: So there's a way to read a EULA without opening the shrink-wrapped package?

No... But before you use the program for the first time the EULA comes up. In addition, a number of programs come in a "sealed" package along side the EULA. This provides you with an opportunity to read the EULA before opening the sealed package.

A copy of the EULA is also frequently always available and often times either sitting right in the manual or on your harddrive or what have you. Generally, it is right there practically in your face. The same can not be said for many laws. For example, laws that involve walking or ownership of dogs. You can rest assured, that there will generally not be a copy of said laws waiting for you on your doorstep, when you take your dog out for a walk. In addition verbal agreements between people often times don't have a recording which you can reference, and so on...

You actually have more chances to read, review, be reminded of, etc... EULAs than many other legally binding things. Simple as that.

In addition many EULAs basicly say the same thing. (As protagonist said) so you can guess the terms for many programs before you even look at the EULA.


archiesteel: The point is moot, however, as it's not that EULAs are legally binding in the first place

Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act

I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.



(As a side note... I am not saying that I feel they should or shouldn't be legal. That I approve of them or disapprove. Nor am I saying that they are legal or illegal everywhere.)

No... But before you use the program for the first time the EULA comes up. In addition, a number of programs come in a "sealed" package along side the EULA.

But if it doesn't, then what are you to do? And saying that other EULAs are "similar" has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever. The only EULA that counts is the one for the software I just bought, and if I can't get a refund ater reading the EULA (which is usually the case with opened boxes) then there's good legal precedent to consider the EULA null and void.

I also don't subscribe to your "dog law" analogy, since we're talking about two very different things. The fact that a EULA might be more prevalent that signs saying "Dogs Forbidden" is irrelevant. (And, as a side note, you can often fight back - and nullify - parking tickets if the parking sign isn't clearly visible from where you parked.)

I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.

Correction: it means that EULAs would be considered valid in certain American states. UCITA laws are american laws, and most state have not adopted them.

archiesteel: The point is moot, however, as it's not that EULAs are legally binding in the first place

Deletomn: I haven't read it myself. But from my understanding, it makes EULAs valid in certain areas of the world.

archiesteel: Correction: it means that EULAs would be considered valid in certain American states. UCITA laws are american laws, and most state have not adopted them.

Yes, that is a most important distinction considering the states of the USA aren't in the world. What you stated is not a correction. What I stated was a correction. The fact is... In some places on the earth (I am not aware of how many) EULAs are legal despite what you say. I only need one example to prove that, which I provided.


archiesteel: And saying that other EULAs are "similar" has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever.

My point is, you know what to expect to start with. You cannot say that for many laws which you are required to follow. Or contracts which you will be required to sign and follow. Or verbal agreements which you will be expected to follow. Etc... In other words... With most software packages, you already know what is expected of you, before you even pay for it. As long as the EULA does not deviate from the norm, you already should know the terms by heart. (And some do and some don't.)

As a result, claiming you "don't know what it says" isn't really much of an excuse for many programs. In fact, for some of them, it's down right nonsense.


archiesteel: The only EULA that counts is the one for the software I just bought, and if I can't get a refund ater reading the EULA (which is usually the case with opened boxes)

Yes and no. As I already mentioned in one other post. Some EULAs give you the right to return the software to the store or to the manufacturer within a certain time frame, if you do not agree to the EULA.

As for stores frequently not accepting returns. This is definitely a valid concern. However, you can thank pirates for this, since a number of them have a tendency to buy a program, copy it, and then return it. I am not saying that this justifies not accepting returns, but it does happen (I personally know people who do this when given the opportunity) and this is the excuse a number of stores use.

Also... Even if the store itself does not accept returns, you can contact the manufacturer and see if they will. (And a number of them are supposed to.)

Generally, in the contract between people and the government, the people give the government the right to establish laws, basically through the contract that is negotiated between the people, called the constitution. At least that's how it works in democracies. Every other contract between people, whether it be verbal or written, for getting a job for example, both participants are up front with their demands and requests,thus you can agree of disagree to the contract before entering into it. Software is the only place where a contract is both set in stone, and largely hidden from view at the very time where it should be visible (which is before purchase). That is why software is different from government laws or other contracts.

Where is the source material for this decision?

When software is purchased in Canada, the EULA does not apply as it comes under provincial or territorial laws where said software was purchased.

BEGIN QUOTE:

I don't think that a EULA is enforcable under Canadian Law....

END QUOTE;

It is not, because EULAs are illegal in Canada...as someone mentioned earlier in some countries they are illegal; Canada being one of those countries. I am not going to go do the work for you, you want to find out about it then go look yourself as I am not -- and never will be -- your slave!

I don't think I can agree with the statement that "Code is meant to be broken by someone". And I sure do not agree with a +4 mod to something like that.

The writers of the software have their RIGHTS to decide how it can be used. You are NOT forced to buy their software, so dont say that "I bought it I can do whatever I want with it".

You can DO whatever you want with it. Whant to burn the disc ? fine. Delete all your copies ? Fine. but if you dont wanna use according to the rules that were there for you to see then return the software and get a refund (which is possible in most places I ever saw an EULA being applied).

I will probably be modded down because of this but... you know what...if such a statement of "My rights are bigger than everyones else" is modded up then being modded down is a compliment.

...
bah.

I don't think I can agree with the statement that "Code is meant to be broken by someone". And I sure do not agree with a +4 mod to something like that.

The writers of the software have their RIGHTS to decide how it can be used. You are NOT forced to buy their software, so dont say that "I bought it I can do whatever I want with it".

No, the writers of software do not have the right to tell people how it can be used. Just like the authors of a book don't have that right. What writers of software have is copyright law and patent law. EULAs are something software companies made up and are now attempting to make legitimate. But it's definitely not a right.

Furthermore, the "owners" of a copyrighted work don't even own that work. In the system the U.S. uses, the people "own" a copyrighted work. The original author, however, gets a limited time during which he gets exclusive rights to decide who can copy the work, modify the work and redistribute the work. As soon as that time limit is up, the author is no different than anyon else and the work enters the public domain. So stop sitting and listening to the *IAA and the BSA and learn exactly what copyright law is and how it works.

/signed (for accuracy)

The license can't legally tell you what you can do with the software. You can burn it, trash the disks, throw it away, let it swish around in your toilet, install it on as many personal computers as you own, as long as you are the only user. Things get hazy if others benefit from your copy of the software.

The software company, can, however, refuse to give you updates if you don't comply with the agreement. However, they can't pursue legal action unless you violate copyright laws. EULA's are mostly posturing and an attempt to control your activities, that's all it really is legally too.

If you don't make copies and give them to anyone, you are within your rights of the law. I can throw that agreement away. If I don't sign it, and choose not to abide by it, there's no recourse for them to take, other than the above mentioned sanctions.

Just don't violate copyright and everything will be OK, I promise 8) As long as the use is "Fair and Reasonable" there isn't a court in the land that will convict you of EULA violations LOL.

I challenge any of you to find a case where Microsoft was able to make someone uninstall windows for violating the EULA, or because the user didn't "own" the software, excepting copyright violations.

They can sue you if you put an ISO and license code up for download, but they can't do squat without that copyright violation.

They could potentially lock you out of your software with a "control feature" in the software. They'd lose a lot of honest paying customers that way tho... when it went horribly wrong.

-Viza

I dont know about the legallity of a EULA or Copyright Law, and you are right on claiming that (I am no lawyer). But I am not talking about "Copyright law".

I just think that if there is an agreement upon a certain product that you have to accept in order to use it, and if you can return the software for refund if you dont agree with it, then you should just use it according to the agreement or not use it at all.

And I still dont see how can anyone (specially if it is one inside computer software market) agree that "Code is meant to be broken". It just doesnt sound fair use to me.

But you know... opinions diverge...

I see your point. SONY fails to honor whatever contracts it has with it's users, therefore it is fair game to ignore Apple's EULA. Does that make any sense?

I see your point. SONY fails to honor whatever contracts it has with it's users, therefore it is fair game to ignore Apple's EULA. Does that make any sense? --evangs

Try actually reading what I said:

...Given how many times in the past (most recent being the infamous SONY root kit) we've seen the Corporates refuse to abide by these 'contracts' I see no reason to respect the EULA of anything these days. --bornagainenguin (emphasis added)

The SONY case is just another event in a long string of events where Corporates have made it clear that they only invoke the mystical EULA contracts as suits them and do not themselves consider it valid, thus the way the SONY root kit installed itself on computers even when the end user told it 'NO' making it clear that as far as our Corporate masters are concerned the EULA is not in their own eyes a valid contract.

My comment had to do with denying the validity of any EULA--Apple's, Microsoft's, anyone's. If the EULA is intended to be the evolution of the contract in electronic form it needs more work and more evolving before it can be considered a fair and reasonable replacement. As it stands now modern EULA are the equivalent to a phishing attack or fraud. Like those 'checks' you would see some people falling for that were actually contracts, people would cash the 'checks' only to discover some time down the road that they now owed a massive debt in interest on the loan they had just bought.

--bornagainpenguin (who will continue to point out the EULA as it now stands is a joke)

>Until they start writing these things in plain and simple language that people can understand they are going to have problems with people routinely violating them.

But that's the point. EULA's are to protect the corporation, not the user. If the language is too simple, the corporation loses some control that they can exert. i.e. it will benefit the user more and the corporation less. That's why the tax code is so complicated. You can control other people easier when the laws are not that easy to understand. EULA's are intentionally unclear. Sure, some people will violate them, but get enough people scared with threat of lawsuits, and they'll get in line.

As to my opinion about the topic, I vote condem. If you want to be free to hack, use free software. If you want to play with proprietary, then that's ok, but play by their rules, and don't expect freedom. Play with fire all you want, but don't be surprised if you get burned.

>> A few years ago the Supreme Court of Finland
>> decided that EULAs don't apply in Finland
>> because by definition individuals don't
>> license the software but buy it

So - if an EULA is invalid, how can (say) GPL be valid?

Isn't a 'license agreement' just a 'license'?

Not that I'm bothered about Finland, actually, and I have an incling of the differences between licensing and contracts, but if we think that the usage limitations in e.g. GPL are enforcable, why would an EULA be different?

James

So - if an EULA is invalid, how can (say) GPL be valid?

Because they're not the same at all.

Isn't a 'license agreement' just a 'license'?

No it isn't.

This had been discussed already in the thread. You're welcome to offer counter-arguments.

but if we think that the usage limitations in e.g. GPL are enforcable

The GPL doesn't impose limitations on use, it grants additional rights to copy, modify and redistribute. That's why it's legal, and the EULAs probably aren't.

I'm getting tired of repeating this...

What consititutes an Apple branded computer is one sold directly by Apple or through their authorized resellers with the Apple logo. You're correct that with the current Mactel systems being sold there is little difference between them and what competitors such as Dell and HP sell customers. After all while the shell may look different the guts inside are the same, with the exception of Apple using EFI instead of a software BIOS. Their marketing is what I call a monopoly or at least unfair business practice as they intentionally try to force consumers to purchases systems only from Apple, block vendors such as Dell from installing OSX on their customers systems and try to stop the majority of their software including OSX from being installed on systems not sold by Apple. I don't know how it is in the USA but here in Canada OSX can be purchased in a retail box and nothing on it indicates it's strictly for an OSX upgrade. Their EULA as it is written now would not stand up in a court of law, at least here anyway.

On a related note when I was shopping at Futureshop the other day I noticed that there were a lot of shoppers asking questions regarding non-Apple systems. The Apple section while visible had people just passing buy. While Apple is slowly opening more stores it's a realization that their sales are clearly based on the iPod and not so much on their computer offerings. Once consumers get passed all the hype comments and marketing tactics and people start asking serious questions about flexibility, TCO, etc Apple becomes less attractive.

You know I think BMW are a friggin monopoly. The other day I went in one of their shops and wanted to buy a motor, so I could put it in my supercool Citroën 2CV and they just told me to stuff it.

Man, I should be able to buy a motor from BMW so I can put it in any car I want and they should also support that. What a mean and illegal business these guys are running trying to force you to buy their cars and their motors bundled together.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone, somewhere has actually put a BMW engine in a 2CV. But BMW doesn't sue people for doing that - and wouldn't it be ridiculous if they did sue you for putting your engine into another car...

Rather you chose to convey your opinion in a socially inappropriate manner while attributing illegality to someone's behavior, which is why you obtained the response that you did.

Didn't I just state I was wrong? That I used the wrong words? I did not even mention anyone's response in the column; specifically because most of the comments politely corrected me.

Well that isn't strictly true, since the staff could hypothetically censor others at their discretion, but since this is not the case I am reticent to even mention it.

Heh, yeah, we don't moderate at all anymore. The moderation system + no anon. posting basically eliminated the nescesary evil of us removing comments (and of course the crappy work it implies, don't forget that, it wasn't fun, judging 100s of comments on whether or not they were against our rules). I rarely even vote comments up or down-- and on my own articles, I vowed not to do it in any way (same goes for Eugenia and the rest of the staff).

And you know, if we really were to censor, we wouldn't have posted the story on Maxxus at all .

Edited 2006-02-19 17:59

It's not a matter of making you admit that you're wrong, but rather a statement that no one is making you think a certain way. They were just reacting because of the way that you chose to express yourself. (Almost?) everyone does that sort of thing from time to time. It's not a big deal.

It is censorship when you make yourself exempt from the moderation system you yourself claim works so well...


--bornagainpenguin

It's not censorship, it's inequity. Not only are his posts at 5 automatically, not subject to moderation, and not subject to the rules governing the conduct of others, but he can also use the front page to espouse his personal beliefs while you (potentially) cannot. That isn't censorship, but rather editorial power.

Not only are his posts at 5 automatically, not subject to moderation, and not subject to the rules governing the conduct of others

We went over this a million times already... The problem is that there are enough people who would moderate the staff down just because we are the staff... To illustrate, we had one guy signing up well over 20 accounts in order to use all those modpoints (when we still gave modpoints to new users immediatly) to influence the outcome fo discussions. Luckily, the guy was someone who did the same a few months earlier, so we picked him out pretty easily.

I would love to be subject to moderation too, but a small group of people, like the one mentioned above (I won't use names) makes that simply impossible. And using a seperate account is too much work, because us admins can only log in and out via the OSNews.com admin back-end. I have a life to run, so I have no time for that.

but he can also use the front page to espouse his personal beliefs while you (potentially) cannot. That isn't censorship, but rather editorial power.

We accept submissions from our readers too, you know. Instead of talking, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and write an answer to this article? Or you can just use the comment's section-- do you write to newspapers and TV networks too each time you disagree with an anchorman/woman or jounralist?

And yes, obviously I have editorial power. You don't wanna know what kind of crap gets submitted to OSNews every day. If OSNews did not have editors, we'd better rename OSNews to itunesipodantiwindowsproappleprognunews.com. Kinda like digg.com, indeed .

shyouko,

Re: "So, you mean it's okay to install an upgrade version of Windows XP with owning a previous version?"

There's a difference. When companies such as Microsoft, Novell, etc release an "upgrade" version it doesn't contain everything in the full release version. After all it's an upgrade, not a full OS installation. The cost is also significantly lower than the full release version. The one currently sold by Apple for OSX Tiger is a full release version.

Re: "The point is that you have to buy an Apple branded computer to obtain a license to use OS X."

Not true. OSX is sold in retail outlets such as Bestbuy and Futureshop. Though the version in stores are currently selling left over stock for PPC due to still having PPC systems in stock. While Apple stores rushed to switch systems to Mactel third party vendors were not so enticed to do so. Once more third party vendors make the transition to Mactel then you'll see Apple releasing retail boxes of OSX for x86.

Re: "To legally run OS X on an x86 box without infringing copyright law (Not the EULA here), you at least have to buy an Apple branded computer to obtain the license. Get it?"

Actually if someone purchases a Mactel system from Apple that comes with an OSX installation disc and chooses to install it on their current systems not sold by Apple this is just a violation of Apple's EULA. Though doing so would void warrenty it's not breaking copyright laws. This will become less of an issue when as stated Apple releases updated retail boxes of OSX Tiger for x86 in stores.

Edited 2006-02-19 18:38

Sorry, but it seems that you are not aware of the fact that all the "retail" boxes of OS X you can buy are actually upgrade version.

All upgrade version of Windows contains a full version of Windows plus a little program that checks if you have a previous Windows installed on the hard disk or you have any full version installation disc of Windows.

OS X doesn't have such check, because every Mac is sold with a copy of Mac OS. So, after all it's an upgrade, not a full OS installation. The cost is also significantly lower than the full release version. (Compare Mac OS X boxes with Windows XP Home Full version.)

And... Apple will never release Tiger for x86 in retail boxes, because every Intel Mac comes with Tiger already.

Sorry, but it seems that you are not aware of the fact that all the "retail" boxes of OS X you can buy are actually upgrade version.

Where exactly does it say that on the box?

Where exactly does it say that on the box?

The box only says that when using this product, you are subject to the license agreement (contrary to what many people think, namely that opening the box subjects you to the license agreement).

But indeed, it says nowhere that it is an upgrade version (I have a German box, because I bought Tiger in Berlin).

Sorry, but it seems that you are not aware of the fact that all the "retail" boxes of OS X you can buy are actually upgrade version.

How do you figure this? You are not required to have a previous version of OS X to install or use the retail version of OS X. So if you are not required to have a previous version it is not an "upgrade" as such. Of course it is an upgrade in the feature and capability sense, but it is a full install. The last true upgrade they had was when they handed out the free 10.1 from 10.0 upgrade. All others have been full versions...

And... Apple will never release Tiger for x86 in retail boxes, because every Intel Mac comes with Tiger already.

You don't know this for sure either... Apple has released new versions of the same major OS before. For example when 10.4.3 or 10.4.4 came out they released new retail OSX tiger boxes including this as the version. If another major update comes out, they may very well release a new OS X retail box with both intel and ppc versions. Although, I do see this as highly unlikely. But saying "Apple will never" is saying that you make the decisions for Apple or no for a fact, and unless you are Steve's right hand man you do not.

Regards,
NeoX

There's a difference. When companies such as Microsoft, Novell, etc release an "upgrade" version it doesn't contain everything in the full release version. After all it's an upgrade, not a full OS installation.

Actually this is incorrect. While they are "upgrades" they are upgrades in License and install only. You can boot your computer from the WindowsXP Home Edition Upgrade CD. Once you satisfy the upgrade portion, you can Format and install a fresh copy of Window's XP. Microsoft's upgrades have been like this since at least Windows 98.

While Apple does not sell upgrades to there OS any longer you have to have a Mac to install it. The only upgrades I recall were the ones for OS X 10.0 to 10.1. But I concur it is a full version, you do not have to have a previous version of OS X to install it as you would an upgrade to WinXP.

Regards,
Paul

if you run OS X on a non-Apple branded computer and don't own an Intel Mac, you are infringing copyright law already.

Actually, no. The infringement is done by the person distributing the software, not by the person downloading it. So Maxxus didn't break the law, though the person who provided him with the Intel version of OS X did.

So, you think you're not infringing copyright law if you downloaded and installed a copy of Windows off the net without buying a license from Microsoft?

Running any software without obtaining the require license is an infringe on copyright law already.

Are you aware that you are licensed to use Linux freely because Linux is licensed under the General Public License.

Edited 2006-02-19 19:21

> Running any software without obtaining the require
> license is an infringe on copyright law already.

Could you provide some references for this? I'm unfamiliar with copyright law and don't know how to get law texts (assuming you are referring to US law). I always thought that copyright law controls *copying* of works, not *running* them.

- Morin

Running any software without obtaining the require license is an infringe on copyright law already.

Are you aware that you are licensed to use Linux freely because Linux is licensed under the General Public License.

Not only are you wrong, but you didn't even read the GPL to see if it backs up your assertion. In fact, the GPL specifically says "[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." So the GPL does not, in fact, give you the right to use Linux, it gives you the right to copy, distribute and modify it.

As a matter of fact, copyright law specifically allows you to make copies of necessary to run it. See 17 US 117 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117...)

So, again, you DO NOT need a license to run software. EULAs are an after sale contract which attempts to restrict your usage of the software beyond what copyright by itself allows.

It is pretty hard to run Linux without making a copy of it as per Title 17. Burning a CD from an ISO is copying, installing it onto a machine is copying. Therefore it is not completely without basis to say the the GPL is authorizing you to do an install of the operating system (copy or adaptation as necessary for utiliation). Without the install use is very difficult.

I am all for the x86 project but in this case Maxxus was not doing clean room engineering nor was he doing work that was promoting the use of the work as allowed by the copyright holder. Copyright does allow you certain freedoms in use, but it is highly questionable whether this falls under it. Arguing the legality in either direction is sophistry however. TToo many countries too many laws.

The current predominant use of a hacked version of OS X on x86 is to facilitate copyright violations and the installation of illegal copies. There are an EXTREME minority who might legally purchase a (upgrade) copy of OS X then use this copy to install on a non apple computer. This may be in violation of the EULA but as I have stated before on OS News, if you are not distributing it, then this I personally find reasonable.

When you purchase a Mac you purchase a license to use OS X on that Mac. If your Mac breaks and is thrown away, or if you completely wipe all traces of the OS from the Mac, then again morally I see no probelm installing it on a different machine. Legally it is questionable though. Further it is my firm belief that cases like this would constitute less than a tenth of a perecnt of the use. when people hold these arguments up as the reason I do not personally believe that is thier intent, based upon the historical lack of ethics when it comes to software copying.


I do not support the illegal copying of Windows, OS X, music, or movies, or any other copyrighted material. The creator has a right to see a return on his or her investment. On the other hand if people acted in a moderately responsible manner; kept copying to personal use only, and did not distribute or receive materials in violation of copyright, much of the arguing on the forums would be moot. Unfortunately we as a global society have shown an apalling lack of respect for the work of others.

It is the creator of the work who retains the right on how a work may or may not be distributed, within the limitations of the law in each country.

Can anyone here at this stage reasonably argue that they are not aware of the general terms of license for OSX? Would anyon care to argue that the workers on the OSx86 project are unaware of the terms?

No one is forcing you to buy the product if you do not like the terms and I find it unlikely that anyone tech savy enough to pull off the install is not aware of what the terms of the license for OS X are (in genreal if not in specific).

So, you think you're not infringing copyright law if you downloaded and installed a copy of Windows off the net without buying a license from Microsoft?

Indeed. Copyright infringement took place, but the party liable for any damages incurred is the one distributing it, not the person downloading it.

Of course, if you run an illegal copy of a software and are found out, you will probably have to uninstall it, but there's really little else the copyright holder can do. You will have broken the EULA, but as we've already discussed it is not clear if that is illegal in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

A pirate is someone who distributes copyrighted material. If you download mp3s and share them, then you're a pirate.

Running any software without obtaining the require license is an infringe on copyright law already.

No it isn't. It's a break of EULA. That has nothing to do with copyright law.

Are you aware that you are licensed to use Linux freely because Linux is licensed under the General Public License.

Again, you're mistaken. The GPL isn't concerned with the use of the software, but about the conditions of its redistribution.

Some licenses do put restriction on use. There was a piece of free software - I can't remember which one - that had a license that said it could not be used for military purposes. However, even with this, the only thing that can happen if you are found out is that you can no longer continue to use it without complying to the license. You won't be prosecuted for copyright infringement.

You really should learn more about copyright law and the GPL.