|
en·trap (n-trp)
tr.v. en·trapped, en·trap·ping, en·traps
1. To catch in or as if in a trap.
2.
a. To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. See Synonyms at catch.
b. To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
[French entraper, from Old French : en-, in; see en-1 + trape, trap (of Germanic origin).]
en·trapment n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
I am totally against piracy, so I find it odd to offer any defense in this, but...
If the caller was basing their usage of the studio on the presence of Waves products, I would say that satisfies 2a of the above definition (partially) It does not excuse the use of illegal software though. It just shows stupid behavior on the owners part. Now since there was no intention of booking the studio on Waves part (or their agent) I would say that entry was allowed on false pretense. We are not talking a news expose- we are talking about filming without permission on private property. Unlike the last Waves blowout on Gearsluts- the studio was not advertising that they had the property, so they were not basing future gain in an abstract sense on this illegal software (though in all likelihood they have other illegal software). A fine point, but a point nontheless.
If the software was not in the building at the time of the call, I would say that the case could be argued. It would be tough, but it could be argued. However given Waves behavior in these situations I would see reasons for the judge to rule against them.
Microsoft was criticized for having software which invaded the end users privacy, and I see this to be a related issue- except it is the company, not the software which is doing the invasion.
charles maynes
|