Printable View
I was wondering if in some strange scenario RAID 1 could be illegal. Perhaps you have a PDF, movie, or an Adobe product installed on a RAID 1 array. Could there be a situation where having two simultaneous copies under the same license cause you to be in violation of said license?
That's no where near the same as installing something more than one time...... You can even run an app more than on at a time.
I understand that, but I was wondering if there were some situations you could get in where it could be against the license.
I highly doubt it. Even if it was the case, there's no way it would go through in court.
With the way our joke of a justice system works, they could pass a law and make it illegal.
in this scenario I HIGHLY DOUBT it is illegal (but then again I'm not a lawyer)
if RAID1 is mirroring (two harddrive working in conjunction for redundancy)
Because the "logical storage drive" is seen as a single storage unit. when you install or download the PDF you are in principle downloading it to a single entity and using it from a single entity
It is how the underlying storage technology works.
it's not like the two harddrive is being used independently and another person have access to the PDF/data at the same time as you
You bring up a good point rimmerchant. I guess it would depend on the definition of "copy" in a contractual agreement. Disallowing two "physical" copies would make it illegal (since the file persists in complete form on two devices), but simply saying you may not make copies could be taken either way.
The reason for this question is due to some of my work under government grants. I would SSH into government run computers to issue work loads. The gray area came up when the SSH permission file could not be copied. Since the file is indeed persistent on two separate devices that could be accessible and usable without each other (mirroring), a legal issue may arise.
Businesses frequently have multiple copies of software on tapes. Many EULAs try to stipulate that you can have only *one* backup copy. I doubt this has ever held in court. In many cases, it likely can be argued that RAID1 falls under the same sort of scenario.
I don't see any software company pursuing someone for having a RAID1 copy. It would hurt their sales more than any settlements would possibly bring in.
I'm a little curious what "SSH permission file" you are talking about that you can't copy. Like a license key for a commercial SSH client?
I got my acronyms wrong, it was SSL, which required a certificate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_B
That's an interesting question. The kind that only makes it to court when it's billion dollar companies battling it out and there are 7 figure legal bills.
With the way management at Apple an Microsoft are suing everyone under the sun and all the patent wars, That may be rather soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist