[rckoepke]

Could you pirate the database, then hide behind the fifth amendment to not reveal that you're a pirate while simultaneously asserting that you never agreed to any EULA? I'm not sure what the legal rights are here.

I'm certain someone in say, China or Russia, could pirate the database and run benchmarks on it with no repercussions. Surprising that this isn't a business model for an overseas technology analyst firm.

[xen0]

> Surprising that this isn't a business model for an overseas technology analyst firm.

How much are you willing to pay for a legally dubious benchmark?

[aaaaaaaaata]

Does anyone ever pay for benchmarks?

Or are they web content used to lure in new contracts?

[mindslight]

It's much simpler than that.

Person A installs database on a shared or to-be-sold computer, requires a license for the installation process to make a copy, "agrees" to EULA.

Person B then runs benchmarks on said computer, which does not require a license because no copy is being made, and publishes the results.

The only flaw in this is that Oracle will send its mafia enforcers to break your kneecaps despite not having a valid legal case. So you'll lose even if you technically can win.

[eastbound]

The Fifth only protects the innocents. It’s a fun twist of this amendment - if you are guilty you do not have a right to keep silent.

[jkaplowitz]

That's true if you've been convicted and sentenced for the crime regarding which your testimony would self-incriminate, but not otherwise. Someone who has committed the crime but hasn't yet been convicted and sentenced still falls under its protection, assuming there isn't a grant of immunity from prosecution to force the testimony anyway.

[HideousKojima]

Other way around, sadly:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Convicted felons are exempt from the portion of the National Firearms Act that requires that machine guns (and other NFA items like short barreled shotguns) be registered as it would violate their 5th Amendment rights.

[donatj]

Huh, that is one of the most interesting supreme court decisions I think I've read. I kind of agree with it in a text-of-the-law sense.

I would be very curious to see that logic hold up in court these days. They got Al Capone on tax evasion for instance, but wouldn't paying his taxes on ill-got funds have been incriminating?

[Xelbair]

and in any sane legal system you are innocent until proven guilty.