Morality Clause In Music Software

[braincell]

For the second time, I bought music software that says in the EULA that it can't be used for any immoral purposes. What the hell does that mean? I guess they don't want it used it porn. I would love to take that one to court!

[petal]

You are not supposed to read the EULA.

[braincell]

LOL usually I don't. I was checking to see if I can use it on more than one computer. They say no in the EULA but someone said you can technically.

[petal]

[hubird]

For the second time, I bought music software that says in the EULA that it can't be used for any immoral purposes. What the hell does that mean? I guess they don't want it used it porn. I would love to take that one to court!

you would definitely lose and have to pay for that trial.

First: no judge on earth would blame music software houses for the software being used for porn or for whatever other illegal or even immoral activities.

Second: therefor I'm glad at least there still are commercial enterprises taking distance themselfves from immoral use, whatever that may be defined.
One might mistrust on forehand the intentions of any company making such statements, but I definitely think
there are people having good intentions with the clause, especially if they don't have to fear getting accused juridically.

Third: abuse of licensies by using it on more than one computer isn't defined juridically as immoral but as illegal.

Fourth: Porn isn't illegal, if it doesn't force or exploit children or force women (or men) to do what they don't want to.
So that can't be a reason.
They might find porn 'immoral', but then it would be a loose statement, tho they have the right to judge it that way.

[braincell]

You misunderstood. I think it's ridiculous. They can't say what is moral if it is legal. Maybe they have some other illegal use in mind such as music that threatens someone's life?

[garyb]

oh, i think there are things that can easily have their morality and/or legality defined pretty easily.

[kensuguro]

I'd say it's one of those catch all type terms. Not that it can be applied indiscriminately, but at least it widens the cast. Studying how people come up with rigorous definitions and at times ways to quantify abstract concepts is a fascinating aspect of law and public policy. I dealt with it through behavioral analytics for games. Once you can count it or point to it, then you can optimize to increase or decrease it, track progress (change), and use it to justify some other action. Whether the way you count things truly represents the concept it stands for (daily active user, retention, etc) is usually besides the point. But "truth" aside, the such attempts are still very interesting to observe.

With the EULA, I think it is mostly concerned with "membership", or defining who is and isn't a user. The "amoral" clause rules out a subsection of users. Which probably means a certain set of conditions apply to the other users who are "moral". Didn't read the EULA, but just a wild guess.

[Nestor]

You are not supposed to read the EULA.