>This is all true and I agree that companies often employ ugly tactics to achieve their aims. Often? Sorry, I meant always. So I take back the "what harm could it do" comment. However, the point I was trying to make was either I want to be law abiding or I don’t. So therefore, I need to know what the law is and then act according to it. If I find the law is against my desired course of action then, too bad, I can’t do what I wanted to do. OR ... I say the law is unjust and/or the company involved is malicious and so I will do it anyway. In the latter I am, by definition, a law breaker but offer justifications for my actions. If the law is not unjust or my opinion of the company is irrelevant then I can't knowingly break the law and still claim the law abiding moral high-ground.
>
>I seem to remember some people were happy to ignore any applicable laws or find a way to work around them because it suited them. Well, thats fine, each to his own and, quite frankly, I dont give a damn.I'm not judging that. But then you cannot claim any moral high ground in respect of abiding by the law and one cannot whine and cry when someone does the same to their own software. What's good for the goose is good for the gander ...

I remembered last night one of the reasons why this episode in UT history irked me. Some of the people who were in an indignant uproar about Rick's actions were the same finger waggers who in the past lectured others on "THE EULA" and why we must obey it. LOL.