54 ms·

If use of an object requires an ongoing contractual relationship with a specific entity, you don't own it. I know that people here won't be super surprised by

If use of an object requires an ongoing contractual relationship with a specific entity, you don't own it. I know that people here won't be super surprised by this concept, but I still think it's worth getting the wording right. Just as with music and videos and games, I think one should be disallowed from calling something "selling", "buying" or "owning" if what's really being done is "licensing". Yeah, I'm from the "words matter" police. :)

ma2rten 6y ago
What about buying a house that is part of a HOA?
- hedora 6y ago
  I think HOAs are a scam. We recently bought a house, and simply didn’t consider anything with an HOA fee (we made exceptions and considered arrangements where the HOA was limited to private road maintenance). I doubt we’re the only ones; the HOA depresses the price of the house. In my mind, a house + HOA = condo, regardless of whether it shares a wall with someone else, and we’d pay accordingly (50-66% as much, tops).
  - dheera 6y ago
    I don't own a home but if I did I sure as hell am not paying any fees to some scammers and sure as hell am not listening to some idiots who think they have any say about how I landscape my yard. HOAs are evil and I wish they could be outlawed.
    - eru 6y ago
      What kind of change in law would you like to see that would outlaw them? As far as I can tell, aren't HOAs just 'built' out of standard contract law?
      - dheera 6y ago
        Yes, but so are non-compete agreements and discrimination, and laws can make those contracts invalid. I would like to see laws make HOAs invalid and null and void. If you own something you should have full control of it, to the extent that it doesn't adversely influence the safety of the community. So yeah I'm okay with laws saying you aren't allowed to store a pile of hazardous chemicals that could be a safety hazard to neighbors but I'm most certainly NOT okay with laws telling you how you're allowed to landscape your garden or what color you can paint your house or what your fence or driveway looks like or whether you park your car in your driveway or garage. To me, owning means I make the rules, to hell with contracts, it's not a rental. Unless it's in some historical district where we're trying to preserve the historic look, that I'd be willing to make an exception for. But definitely not in random suburbs.
        srtjstjsj 6y ago
        In a free country, why would you take away my right to join an HOA to protect the home I own? The 1sr Amendment guarantees freedom of association.
        LocalH 6y ago
        Sounds an awful lot like mob “protection”
        eru 6y ago
        > If you own something you should have full control of it, to the extent that it doesn't adversely influence the safety of the community. Well, but that's just an issue of definition. By your peculiar definition, it just means that you don't own the home that comes with HOA encumbrance. I don't think your peculiar definition is the same as the law normally uses. By itself, it's as fine a definition as long as everyone is careful in their use of words, and doesn't try to draw build moral arguments from issues of definition. I'm not a lawyer. But I suspect that your first paragraph mentioning issues of discrimination might be able to have some legal firepower. I doubt you'd get much mileage out of anti-trust concerns, unless a particular HOA was dominating a housing market? As for your second paragraph: those sounds like excellent reasons for an individual such as you or me NOT to buy a home that's part of a HOA. But they furnish no reason to outlaw HOAs, ie to forbid other people from forming them or joining them.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    An HOA isn't theoretically better or worse than a state government.
bookofjoe 6y ago
I once read that the test of whether or not you own something is, "Can you sell it?" In this vein, movies and TV shows you "buy" from Apple, Amazon, etc. are not yours.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I don't think that's the right test. The question is do you control it? Can it be modified? Can it be defended? Transferred or loaned to someone else? Copied? The movies and TV on streaming services are not yours because you don't control them and they can be removed at any time. Market salability is another question entirely. There are items you can own you might be prohibited from selling on an open market, such as a landmark property or a particularly destructive weapon.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Of course “when applicable”. You can’t copy a physical object physically, and technically can’t even copy a physical object by recreating it without violating some trademark or the maker’s copyright.
- eru 6y ago
  Then some things are owned by nobody. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideicommissum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideicommissum

ma2rten 6y ago

What about buying a house that is part of a HOA?

hedora 6y ago
I think HOAs are a scam. We recently bought a house, and simply didn’t consider anything with an HOA fee (we made exceptions and considered arrangements where the HOA was limited to private road maintenance). I doubt we’re the only ones; the HOA depresses the price of the house. In my mind, a house + HOA = condo, regardless of whether it shares a wall with someone else, and we’d pay accordingly (50-66% as much, tops).
- dheera 6y ago
  I don't own a home but if I did I sure as hell am not paying any fees to some scammers and sure as hell am not listening to some idiots who think they have any say about how I landscape my yard. HOAs are evil and I wish they could be outlawed.
  - eru 6y ago
    What kind of change in law would you like to see that would outlaw them? As far as I can tell, aren't HOAs just 'built' out of standard contract law?
    - dheera 6y ago
      Yes, but so are non-compete agreements and discrimination, and laws can make those contracts invalid. I would like to see laws make HOAs invalid and null and void. If you own something you should have full control of it, to the extent that it doesn't adversely influence the safety of the community. So yeah I'm okay with laws saying you aren't allowed to store a pile of hazardous chemicals that could be a safety hazard to neighbors but I'm most certainly NOT okay with laws telling you how you're allowed to landscape your garden or what color you can paint your house or what your fence or driveway looks like or whether you park your car in your driveway or garage. To me, owning means I make the rules, to hell with contracts, it's not a rental. Unless it's in some historical district where we're trying to preserve the historic look, that I'd be willing to make an exception for. But definitely not in random suburbs.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        In a free country, why would you take away my right to join an HOA to protect the home I own? The 1sr Amendment guarantees freedom of association.
        LocalH 6y ago
        Sounds an awful lot like mob “protection”
      - eru 6y ago
        > If you own something you should have full control of it, to the extent that it doesn't adversely influence the safety of the community. Well, but that's just an issue of definition. By your peculiar definition, it just means that you don't own the home that comes with HOA encumbrance. I don't think your peculiar definition is the same as the law normally uses. By itself, it's as fine a definition as long as everyone is careful in their use of words, and doesn't try to draw build moral arguments from issues of definition. I'm not a lawyer. But I suspect that your first paragraph mentioning issues of discrimination might be able to have some legal firepower. I doubt you'd get much mileage out of anti-trust concerns, unless a particular HOA was dominating a housing market? As for your second paragraph: those sounds like excellent reasons for an individual such as you or me NOT to buy a home that's part of a HOA. But they furnish no reason to outlaw HOAs, ie to forbid other people from forming them or joining them.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  An HOA isn't theoretically better or worse than a state government.

bookofjoe 6y ago

I once read that the test of whether or not you own something is, "Can you sell it?" In this vein, movies and TV shows you "buy" from Apple, Amazon, etc. are not yours.

tehjoker 6y ago
I don't think that's the right test. The question is do you control it? Can it be modified? Can it be defended? Transferred or loaned to someone else? Copied? The movies and TV on streaming services are not yours because you don't control them and they can be removed at any time. Market salability is another question entirely. There are items you can own you might be prohibited from selling on an open market, such as a landmark property or a particularly destructive weapon.
- judge2020 6y ago
  Of course “when applicable”. You can’t copy a physical object physically, and technically can’t even copy a physical object by recreating it without violating some trademark or the maker’s copyright.
eru 6y ago
Then some things are owned by nobody. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideicommissum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideicommissum