[WikiEN-l] [Wikitech-l] Re: Update to gfdl copyright notice needed

[Alex R.]

From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> Alex R. wrote:
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> >
> >>And are you implying that, if I press "I agree" on a
> >>click-through license on software, then I don't have
> >>to follow it?
> >>
> >The license is binding on children. If it wasn't then
> >children could not buy video games, videotapes,
> >books, etc. no one would sell it to them. Children
> >enter into contracts all the time.
> >
> That depends on where they are.  In BC law a child can only be held
> liable in a contract for necessities.  (Wkipediholics might have a hard
> time convincing the courts that Wikipedia is a necessity. :-) )

We are talking about copyright here, contract law does not apply,
copyright law in the US is a federal law and supercedes state
contract law. Anyone who can own property can own a copyright.
Children can own property, it is not a consensual thing, of course
selling or transfering the property may be another issue, but they
cannot get any more title to copyright than they have in a license,
so when a minor receives copyrighted material they are not only
limted by contract, but also by the principals of property law.

> Those who sell video games, etc.to children do so at their own risk
> The most likely kind of dispute is for not having paid for the game,
> and these end up too bad for the vendor.

Don't know any vendors who sell video games on credit to minors,
do you? If the minor has a credit card the bank gets it guaranteed by
the adult; essentially the adult is backing up the purchases by the minor
and must pay for them (this is a form of consent). When you are in retail
you have them pay cash, especially when they are little kids. The parents
may then take them to court, but more than likely most vendors will allow
 the parent (within a reasonable time) to return the game as this is
goodwill
for the vendor (also another reason to put video games in proprietary
no copiable formats so the kids don't buy them, get their parents to
void the sale after they have copied them).  "Hey mom, look I purchased
this CD without your permission, maybe you should go and
get the purchase voided." Yes, son, but have you copied it yet? I want
to listen to that album too."

Most parents will not give the child money for purchases, or the child will
not
tell the parent where they bought the game. If it is a cash sale, how do you
even find the retailer? There is no privity of contract with the software
developer.  Even without the contract there is alway the quantum merit
or unjust enrichment restitution argument. I would be interested in seeing
a statistical study of retailers being taken to small claims courts for
selling
to minors; bet it is very rare case indeed.

>If vendors had to rely on some kind of
> assurance that the child could properly agree to the licensing agreement
> the entire video game market would collapse.  Concerned parents would be
> loath to agree to these as a way of keeping the kids away from games.
>  If these children do not develop a video game "addiction" during
> childhood, they are much less likely to be customers when they grow up.

I guess you are saying that they give the games to kids even without the
binding legal contract, because it is good business practice.

But if they have been paid and the parents don't  object after a period of
time that parents cannot sit on their hands (laches) and then go to court
and try to get the sale overturned. After the sale is ratified, explicitly
or
implicitly by the parent, it will likely be very hard to get a judge to void
the confirmed contract. Are most parents going to be so diligent as
to run to court after every small purchase by the minor child?

I think this is becoming a very academic discussion about minors
and their contract rights, maybe someone should add it to the page about
contract and the variations on voidable contracts, restitution and mis-
representations that effect contracting with minors.

> >We can certainly add text about minors to the Terms and
> >Conditions (maybe it should be called Submission
> >Standards, terms and conditions sounds too much like
> >contract boilerplate that no one may ever read).
> >But getting permission from their parents?
> >
> Oh, no!  More wrds! :-)

Ain't words wha' Wikipedia awl 'bout?

> >What about marital property? Should a wife get her
> >husband's approval because he might later say that
> >she is wasting valuable marital property by releasing
> >it under the GFDL?
> >
> The nimber of possible variations is endless.

 Do you want me to start listing them? For the edification
of other list members? (just kidding)

Alex756