4 ms·

How is this any different than Microsoft restricting Home versions of Office for non-business use? They've been getting away with that for decades now.

smitherfield 9y ago
Well, for one, a car is a physical object; you can't near-instantaneously create an arbitrary number of exact duplicates of your car.
- kyberias 9y ago
  Why would that - whether it's physical or not - determine what kind of licenses you can attach to the product?
  - smitherfield 9y ago
    When you buy a car, the title is signed over to you, and you become its owner. Microsoft Office is information that Microsoft agrees to share with you subject to certain restrictions on your use of it. To actually purchase Microsoft Office the intellectual property, as opposed to a license for it, would cost you about 9 orders of magnitude more. They're also restricting their customers' actions in meatspace (you can't drive people around in exchange for money) while the Office restrictions (you can't create business-related files) are IP-related. A more accurate analogy would be if Microsoft banned you from using a Surface for business purposes (or for business purposes while running Windows, but it's impossible to install a different OS). IANAL so I don't know if Tesla is on solid legal ground (I would guess that probably they are), but I think there's certainly a clear philosophical distinction.
    - ErikHuisman 9y ago
      tesla is restricting the autopilot software not the car itself
      - falcolas 9y ago
        Given that the car can not operate at all without the software enabled (and not just Autopilot, as Tesla has demonstrated with salvage title cars), this is a distinction without a difference.
wilhil 9y ago
Because when you buy software, you know you are renting it - you technically can reverse engineer/decompile, copy, clone, resell - but you know you shouldn't. If I buy a car and want to take the engine out, or a light and resell it - I would be very stupid, but, it is my property and I should be able to. If Tesla want to lend instead of sell you something - fine, just be honest!
- pxndx 9y ago
  Why is there a difference between sowtware and the car? Didn't you also pay for the software?
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    A functioning commercial regulatory apparatus would not allow vendors to call the practice of providing encumbered software licenses in exchange for money by the term "selling software". That we put to with this practice, which basically lives on consumer confusion, is a bug. It's a lot like our allowing people to sell patent medicines as "supplements". In both cases, we let people distort the meaning of regular words for commercial gain.
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      Copyright is a very stupid concept. Just because we benefit from it doesn't mean that we should support it until the end of time. Perhaps we should start taking about getting rid of copyright. Now, I'm not saying we get rid of all laws. End of copyright will not allow me to put a maliciously crafted copy of Microsoft Windows or Google chrome online in order to deceive users into thinking they are genuine. I still may not misrepresent when I copy things. In fact, I think these laws need strengthening which we can if we ditch copyright.
  - z92 9y ago
    He said the payment was more like a rent than gaining full ownership, as in a car.
- mtgx 9y ago

smitherfield 9y ago

Well, for one, a car is a physical object; you can't near-instantaneously create an arbitrary number of exact duplicates of your car.

kyberias 9y ago
Why would that - whether it's physical or not - determine what kind of licenses you can attach to the product?
- smitherfield 9y ago
  When you buy a car, the title is signed over to you, and you become its owner. Microsoft Office is information that Microsoft agrees to share with you subject to certain restrictions on your use of it. To actually purchase Microsoft Office the intellectual property, as opposed to a license for it, would cost you about 9 orders of magnitude more. They're also restricting their customers' actions in meatspace (you can't drive people around in exchange for money) while the Office restrictions (you can't create business-related files) are IP-related. A more accurate analogy would be if Microsoft banned you from using a Surface for business purposes (or for business purposes while running Windows, but it's impossible to install a different OS). IANAL so I don't know if Tesla is on solid legal ground (I would guess that probably they are), but I think there's certainly a clear philosophical distinction.
  - ErikHuisman 9y ago
    tesla is restricting the autopilot software not the car itself
    - falcolas 9y ago
      Given that the car can not operate at all without the software enabled (and not just Autopilot, as Tesla has demonstrated with salvage title cars), this is a distinction without a difference.

wilhil 9y ago

Because when you buy software, you know you are renting it - you technically can reverse engineer/decompile, copy, clone, resell - but you know you shouldn't. If I buy a car and want to take the engine out, or a light and resell it - I would be very stupid, but, it is my property and I should be able to. If Tesla want to lend instead of sell you something - fine, just be honest!

pxndx 9y ago
Why is there a difference between sowtware and the car? Didn't you also pay for the software?
- quotemstr 9y ago
  A functioning commercial regulatory apparatus would not allow vendors to call the practice of providing encumbered software licenses in exchange for money by the term "selling software". That we put to with this practice, which basically lives on consumer confusion, is a bug. It's a lot like our allowing people to sell patent medicines as "supplements". In both cases, we let people distort the meaning of regular words for commercial gain.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    Copyright is a very stupid concept. Just because we benefit from it doesn't mean that we should support it until the end of time. Perhaps we should start taking about getting rid of copyright. Now, I'm not saying we get rid of all laws. End of copyright will not allow me to put a maliciously crafted copy of Microsoft Windows or Google chrome online in order to deceive users into thinking they are genuine. I still may not misrepresent when I copy things. In fact, I think these laws need strengthening which we can if we ditch copyright.
- z92 9y ago
  He said the payment was more like a rent than gaining full ownership, as in a car.
mtgx 9y ago