Jacqui, that argument would not work. Copyright is ALWAYS in force, whether you advertise the fact or not. The only exception is if you explicitly relinquish copyright, or explicitly permit redistribution in ways that otherwise would be breach of copyright. The law is quite clear on this in most if not all western countries. Stormrage, you illustrate perfectly what I mean by bad law. It's actually bad law in two ways, one because it dangerously imperils the rights of the individual, and two, because it's very badly defined, which is why the courts can disagree in the way you describe. Consider an EULA with any of the following terms: 1. This item may not be used for commercial purposes. 2. This item may not be used for erotic purposes. 3. This item may not be used for religious purposes. 4. This item may not be used for Jewish religous purposes. 5. This item may not be used by Jews. Which of these would be considered enforceable in a US court? I presume not number 5, which is offensive and probably illegal. But the boundary between each is rather narrow.