Gosh, I hate to play Internet Lawyer, but it's only fair I pass on a few things.
Law isn't (nor should it be) scary. But a few punks and thugs out there have tried to make it that way.
Still, there's freedom of speech?
Well, no. I choose to remove the page, because a lawsuit would have cost me an awful lot of money and time.
Yes, there's still plenty of Freedom of Speech.
There woulda been no lawsuit. There woulda been no cost to you.
His job was to sound intimidating. It worked! His job, what the client paid him for, was to bully you into submission. It worked!
In reality, they strut and posture and talk big, but when it actually comes down to lowering the boom, nope. One reason is because they have to PROVE DAMAGES. That means you get to look at their books. They have to lay them out for all to see. They don't wanna do that. Besides, most judges will pound right back when they see this thuggish behavior.
So they just bully people and get away with it.
Their chief weapon is "Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur" or He Who Is Silent Consents. They bully you, making claim and accusation, and if you sit silently without responding (via the same communication method they used, like mail) then they were right.
But.....the fact that they 'could' and you agreed to it knowingly or unknowingly (seeing how most don't read what they are agreeing to ) is appalling.
No, the morons in any such case are us.
I agree with your sentiment and certainly support your concern. It needs much more visibility and observance in the public arena, too.
But this is a dance, not a war.
For instance, let's just have a real look, a legal-like look, at the text, eh?
"2.2 You must permit the Licensor and his representatives, at all reasonable times and on reasonable advance notice, to inspect and have access to any premises, and to the computer equipment located there, at which the Software or the Documentation is being kept or used, and any records kept pursuant to this Licence, for the purpose of ensuring that you are complying with the terms of this Licence."
Here are some (very few) questions that come to my mind that they're gonna hafta satisfy first:
1. Who is this Licensor or representative? The janitor? The regional rep? his secretary? Who makes this ID? And where is it established and publicly held so that we, the users, can be certain?
2. "reasonable times" is often considered "customary business hours" but that's not what they said, is it? I work until late at night. "reasonable" NOW means 3 a.m. No other access is available, sorry.
3. "reasonable advance notice" is again, openly interpreted as anything from 24 hours to 90 days. Who makes this interpretation? Who says?
4. What is being inspected? That's several pages, right there.
5. Who says the Software is on THAT computer? You? Prove it! I say it's not on there. Prove to me otherwise. Unless you seize the computer - which ain't gonna happen from a corporation - I say you're wrong.
6. And wow... let's get into the "terms of this licence". Talk about an avalanche of open interpretations!
7. Must be a British spelling: Licence, not License. So more-likely this is all a British thing that has zero to do with the good ol' USA. You know, where they have no 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th Amendments? And cops are routinely used as a private force? Maybe that's possible over there. If so, it's a tempest in a teapot. They got LOTS of other infringements so this hardly even counts.
There's no problem, at least for me. In America, there's no such thing as them knocking on your door and saying, "Hey, you checked the box. We're here to inspect software that we think is still ours." Lots of safeguards already in place, not the least of which is a pesky, ongoing, hardly settled question of ownership of the software. Aside Property Rights (landlord stuff) no one can enter or inspect anything without Public Sector involvement (warrant) which cannot occur unless they can show your Focusrite was being used to threaten "national security" or "the common good". Sorry. No chance.
In Europe, I dunno.
P5