[Web4lib] Nature copyright clause (was Wikipedia vs. Britannica)

[Jeremy Dunck]

On 12/16/05, Walt.Crawford at rlg.org <Walt.Crawford at rlg.org> wrote:
> 2. If you were required to agree to a license--to click on a EULA--to see
> the material, then it's no longer a copyright issue. Whether such a license
> would be legally conscionable or enforceable is quite another question, but
> you're dealing with contract law, not copyright law.
>
> I'd guess it's unlikely that #2 applies.

Many web sites have licenses which try to imply consent, including Nature:
"In accessing this Web Site, you agree that the Web Site is made
available for your personal, non-commercial use only."

There have been cases in which implied consent was enforceable, but I
think they all hinged on whether it was possible to not realize the
implication.  So, if there is a wrapper around a CD which says "by
opening this you agree to the following license", it's enforced.  Not
so clear on Nature.com, since the notice is on a side page, and since
at the time you read that page, you've already accessed the web site.

IANAL, and I don't have specific case references.  But contract law as
it applies to the net and software is a contentious thing; some SW
EULAs are truly draconian, but I'm not aware of any cases to test
them.  Similarly with open source licenses e.g. GPL.  Which is to say,
this current state of play is unknown; I think the cost of the legal
system slants the actual law, as it's practiced, away from the
consumer (or "little guy").  Almost no one has gone to court against
RIAA, for example.  I think its interesting that the progress of case
law and resulting precedence is being slowed in this way, even as the
practices and issues change more rapidly.  Something's got to change;
it's just a question of when.