4 ms·

> I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the

• jiiam 11y ago
  Let's not play dumb. Of course you got an EULA with your software, the point is the legitimacy of the EULA from a legal and jurisprudential point. Same holds for the copyright law. I mean, there is obviously a law stating that you cannot do this or that because it violates copyright. This implies that you as a citizen might do something illegal as close yourself in your room, do some magic and then get out and forget about it, although what you did has no influence on the world whatsoever. That is a problem. Now, if we want to be precise there is actually a clear definition of what you own, and in fact you probably do not own the copy of Windows running on your PC. Still it is possible that you own that PC, and its hard drives and other stuff, so when we say that you do not own the software but just a license to use it we are giving credit to stuff like this: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agreed/ http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre... or this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/# http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/#! To sum up, sure you might not have the right to hack your properties, but that's caused by a set of laws defending a power inbalance between consumers and producers. I believe that claiming that any sort of "hacking your stuff" should be prohibited because the law says so is an example of irrational justificationism if not supported by further arguments, still I'd like to hear about the reasons why we need copyright law as is.
  • rakoo 11y ago
    That's the thing though, you don't own it, you've been granted the right to use it. Of course I'm biased because I'm a proponent of Libre software, but that problem has been described since rms started his crusade: you don't own a software the same way you own a chair, so the license you have must give you the rights to effectively do whatever you want with (and to) it. Those EULA are dumb, but you don't have to agree with them. In many cases there will be no alternative, for sure. However you can't accept an EULA and subsequently say "this EULA sucks, I don't have to follow it".
• flohofwoe 11y ago
  Well gosh, I don't remember signing a contract, just clicked some button to make that stupid wall of text go away so I could use the software after I already paid for it. I never met a human (excluding lawyers) who actually has read through a single EULA, and I doubt most of them would be valid if actually tested in court, at least outside the US. [edit: typo]
  • tempestn 11y ago
    It is pretty absurd when you go to use your Facebook app or whatever and are presented with a 73-page wall of text that you are expected to read and understand before going on to use the app. If those things are legally enforceable, then something is definitely broken. Edit: Often it's not even at purchase. There are numerous apps that will do this every time they change their terms. And they don't show you a change list either. It's the whole 50-150 pages. No reasonable person would actually read it.
• realusername 11y ago
  That's the part not everyone is agreeing on, this is how Microsoft defines it, not how the users are seeing it.