"Your LBS License will also automatically terminate if you materially breach these Terms."

Page 2 of 2 (33 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 32 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 25647
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2020 2:31 PM

David Wanat:
I was worried about accidentally violating some obscure rule and losing my license, but if I understand it correctly, this would be more about attempts to violate copyright rules deliberately?

David and Peter

There's nothing 'obscure' about pirating text or violating copyright for large selections of text. It is deliberate, and not accidental. Just do the 'right' thing by others and enjoy Logos.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 576
David Wanat | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2020 4:09 PM

Dave Hooton:

David Wanat:
I was worried about accidentally violating some obscure rule and losing my license, but if I understand it correctly, this would be more about attempts to violate copyright rules deliberately?

David and Peter

There's nothing 'obscure' about pirating text or violating copyright for large selections of text. It is deliberate, and not accidental. Just do the 'right' thing by others and enjoy Logos.

You misunderstood me. I never called piracy obscure. I said that until I learned it was for abusing copyright material, I thought there was a risk of accidentally violating a rule and losing a license. Once I learned the real meaning, I quit worrying.

WIN 10 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM

Ultimate: Verbum | Diamond: Orthodox  | Gold: Eastern Rite, Ordinariate | Silver: Anglican | Bronze: Standard, Lutheran | Starter: Baptist, Messianic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Reformed, SDA

Posts 145
Pete De Bonte | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2020 6:38 PM

David Wanat:
I said that until I learned it was for abusing copyright material,

Wait, why would the automatic termination be limited to copyright? Yes, my alert level is lower now than when I first posted two nights ago, but reducing it to copyright seems significantly oversimplified. There is more in the two-dozen sections of the Fathlife ToS than just copyright. What about the AUP (§4), just for one example?

Posts 25647
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2020 7:04 PM

David Wanat:
You misunderstood me. I never called piracy obscure.

Of course not! I was only stating that piracy is not obscure, therefore it is not done "accidentally".

David Wanat:
Once I learned the real meaning, I quit worrying.

Excellent

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 25647
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2020 8:33 PM

Pete De Bonte:
What about the AUP (§4), just for one example?

Abuse of Copyright is part of the AUP (emphasizing the means of violating it) e.g. points c. f.  h. and i.

Most of the others (incl.the rest of h. and i.) are anti-social, obviously illegal (piracy) or a deliberate action. The more more technical users could get into trouble with points n. and o.

Point m. is a little obscure, but it comes down to a deliberate action.

Point g. contemplates the use of Personal Books (from the Public domain) to compete with what Faithlife could produce or actually sells e.g. by distributing the docx file to other users. Now, this is a really grey area as you can upload to the Files forum. Also, other users could refer you to a site for a public domain document(s). So, if in doubt "do not share"! Overall, this is the only point to be concerned with.

EULA §5 is another point to consider when you have multiple installations across one or more devices. Of itself, this is not illegal, but who is using it other than the license holder? There is some freedom within a family (I won't clarify unless necessary), but FL will monitor "excessive simultaneous logins on different devices". Sometimes it won't be "simultaneous" as I had to re-enter my login credentials on a couple of occasions (I have had up to 5 legally used installations on two devices!). Fair enough, it will be disabled if the "user" doesn't know the login!

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 1698
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2020 10:00 AM

I appreciate your desire to approach this ethically and live up to the terms you're agreeing to.

For what it's worth, Faithlife is balancing two things: the need to have the 'legal cover' for an action we need to take, or might be obligated to take on behalf of a rights holder we've signed a contract with, and the need to continue our reputation for treating people kindly and fairly.

There's no advantage to us to penalize someone for doing something accidentally, or making a mistake, etc. -- and a severe negative reputation hit if we did do that.

On the other hand, we need to ability / agreement that we can, when necessary, live up to our obligations / end egregious abuse of our product.

For example, we've had people share licenses with multiple unrelated people; instead of turning it off, we've asked them to stop.

But in one case we had someone share a very large library of content with 96 different people, and learned that they'd set up a little business and were actually taking payment in exchange for installing their library onto other people's computers. This is an account that was deactivated for all of those illegal copies.

I hope this helps, and that you'll appreciate that our desire is to serve you and deliver great value; the legal details cover a lot of worst-case-scenario protections that we rarely (and wish to never need to) invoke.

Posts 145
Pete De Bonte | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2020 10:23 AM

Bob Pritchett:
…we need to ability / agreement that we can, when necessary, live up to our obligations / end egregious abuse of our product.

Thanks for writing, Bob!

In other EULAs, I've seen language like, "We may terminate your license if you…" and that has always seemed far less alarming to me than autotermination. Is there any chance that language like that might be sufficient to cover Faithlife's needs?

Posts 2841
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2020 2:03 PM

My experience of more than 20 years of using Faithlife (Logos Bible Software) convinces me that I can trust Bob and the company to do what is right and fair.  Unless you are intentionally trying to do something dishonest, I do not think you have anything to worry about.  Indeed, I have found them to be more than fair.

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 145
Pete De Bonte | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2020 2:45 PM

Michael Childs:
I can trust Bob and the company to do what is right and fair.

Thanks for the testimony, but that isn't the issue that I'm discussing. I'm thankful for Bob's explanation of the spirit of things; and I'm just asking for the letter of the law to reflect that explanation (e.g. "Faithlife may terminate…" instead of automatically — just a possible idea).

As it stands, without Faithlife doing anything, if one day I discover that I've done something wrong in the past, I'll then have the additional fault of having been unknowingly operating without a license for some time, because it autoterminated when I first made that mistake. Moreover, with autotermination, if I'm even wondering if something that I've done might have been a violation, then I lack assurance that I have an active license, because it might of autoterminated. That's why I typically reject autoterminating EULAs. I've even declined gifts of autoterminating software, because it's usually not worth the additional burden on my conscience. In the case of LBS, I suppose I could take Bob up on his spirit of the law by writing to Faithlife to confess and beg for restoration/forgiveness; but by the letter of the law, stop using the software until I receive a presumably positive response?

To flip the discussion around, however: what is the advantage to Faithlife of "automatically terminate" if the desire of Faithlife (if I understood Bob correctly) is the ability to take elective action?

Posts 145
Pete De Bonte | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2020 2:47 PM

Btw, I'm a Republic Wireless customer, and I greatly appreciate Republic Wireless' termination clause, as it graciously gives their users both notice that they have failed in some way, and the time to rectify it.

"…which failure remains uncured thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of written notification from the non-defaulting party informing the defaulting party of such failure…

I'm guessing that is what I had in mind in my OP, when I asked if we could have some provision for reconciliation. Then again, RW is quite an unusual company, and their terms are unusual from the outset:

WE TRUST YOU. WE REALLY, REALLY TRUST YOU. WE WISH OUR COMMUNITY COULD ENJOY REPUBLIC WIRELESS ON NOTHING MORE THAN A VIRTUAL HANDSHAKE. OUR LAWYERS DID NOT LIKE THAT IDEA.

I wouldn't imagine Faithlife going as far as Republic Wireless : >, and again my alert level is far lower now than when I made my OP; however, I'd still be excited if Faithlife might even consider changing the "automatically" part to "Faithlife may" (or something like that: *shrug*).

Posts 3615
Forum MVP
PetahChristian | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2020 4:54 PM

Pete De Bonte:
then I lack assurance that I have an active license, because it might of autoterminated

You wouldn't have received some notification, or had your resources' permanent licenses revoked?

It would seem odd if the software license ended, but you still had access to the software and its resources.

My top three Logos 9 Wishlist items: Carta, Dark mode, and Hebrew audio bible, please.

Posts 145
Pete De Bonte | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2020 5:05 PM

PetahChristian:
It would seem odd if the software license ended, but you still had access to the software and its resources.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about: "terminate" means that the contract has ended. The software might execute on my computer, but I lack the legal right to execute it, under the terms of the contract. Moreover, "automatically" means that Faithlife needn't do anything for that to happen, because they already posted it that way in their ToS [and apparently, I accepted that condition multiple times, e.g. whenever I started using Libronix (it was even in the 2004 EULA), and when I installed L4, and by my "continued use of the product" (L6), and by my "continued use of the Services" when the EULA was merged last year, and at at times in between = a lot of opportunities to have failed]. That's why the "self-policing" terminology (q.v. David Wanat's Jun22 post) is so apropos.

Posts 145
Pete De Bonte | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 27 2020 10:56 AM

For another option, a web search for "We reserve the absolute right…" seems to show that phrase correlated with terminating and/or suspending users.

I made that search wondering about the "absolute" part, after seeing it in an apologetics site's ToS this morning.

Page 2 of 2 (33 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS