3 ms·
What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does) have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product tria
by rkeene2 7y ago
What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does) have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product trials, but not limited to such).
One could ALSO, assuming the owners wanted to sell it, buy PhotoShop but it would likely be millions of dollars and there would probably be a more economical solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve.
- deogeo 7y agoYou're conflating buying a copy with buying a license. The two are not the same - e.g. you can buy a copy of a book, without buying the copyright itself. The book is then yours, not 'licensed'. That you don't have the right to make further copies is a different matter.
- rkeene2 7y agoBooks and software differ. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-cop...
- deogeo 7y agoAccording to that very same link, they do not. You probably mean this passage: > Most computer software is distributed through the use of licensing agreements. Under this distribution system, the copyright holder remains the "owner" of all distributed copies. But this is not a difference in how copyright works for software - it's just the description of the practice of contracts of adhesion. One could 'license' a book the same way, or not include these agreements with software.
- rkeene2 7y agoDo you believe that statement contradicts or supports my claim (below) ? > What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does) have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product trials, but not limited to such). My assertion is that what you are purchasing in the Adobe Software case is a license, what you are purchasing in your hypothetical book case is not. It is something else, it is different.
- deogeo 7y agoYes, it's different in the Adobe Software case, because they chose to attach a license to it. They could have just as well sold, not licensed, individual copies, the same way that books are sold. Books and software don't differ intrinsically - the business practices of software vendors differ from those of book vendors. What bothers me is the pretense that the only possibilities are licensing software, with all of the zero rights that usually entails, or buying the entire copyright to the software, for, as you said, millions of dollars. It borders on a lie of omission - it's perfectly possible to sell copies of software - vendors just choose not to.
- rkeene2 7y agoSo are we now both in agreement that my original statement (below) is factually correct ? > What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does) have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product trials, but not limited to such). > One could ALSO, assuming the owners wanted to sell it, buy PhotoShop but it would likely be millions of dollars and there would probably be a more economical solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve. And we are _only_ in disagreement that the situation warranted listing additional purchasing options, in context ?
- deogeo 7y agoAgreed.
- nimajneb 7y agoAren't you buying a license to copy the software compared to buying a license for the subscription to the software, in this Adobe scenario?