3 ms·

Independent of copyright law, people have a more fundamental right to contract as they wish. If people wish to pay less by allowing a lack of full control of h

by ponow 5y ago

Independent of copyright law, people have a more fundamental right to contract as they wish. If people wish to pay less by allowing a lack of full control of hardware in their possession, then we shouldn't stop them. To assert otherwise is to deny them a basic liberty. True, if many accept such limitations then it creates a kind of market pressure, but that's just competition, and we have no natural right to be protected from competition.

salawat 5y ago
That's very clever trying to cast it as the customer who is desirous of this contract, when in fact that can't be further from the truth; it is often the seller who is, in fact pushing a contract, which isn't a genuine contract as soon as they figure out the technical means to do so? I reject your assertion of the supremacy of the contract. The contract is a vehicle subordinate to State regulation , and the State recognizes there are things that cannot be contractually done, selling oneself or another into servitude being one, and I hold, that violation of First Sale rights should be another. To do anything else is to undermine the very concept of private ownership. When industry colludes and makes standard the practice of not offering wares for sale under traditional terms, I hold this as an appropriate circumstance for the State to step in, particularly when it is made as obvious that poor faith is at the root of the business practice. Insult me not with assertions that finding a way to extract multiple payments, or extort out recurring revenue by "unlocking" functionality via firmware delivered over the air is anything but poor faith veneered in the illusion of convenience for the customer in light of the purveyor also gaining the capability to at will degrade the product by definition.

3 ms·

Independent of copyright law, people have a more fundamental right to contract as they wish. If people wish to pay less by allowing a lack of full control of h

by ponow 5y ago

salawat 5y ago
That's very clever trying to cast it as the customer who is desirous of this contract, when in fact that can't be further from the truth; it is often the seller who is, in fact pushing a contract, which isn't a genuine contract as soon as they figure out the technical means to do so? I reject your assertion of the supremacy of the contract. The contract is a vehicle subordinate to State regulation , and the State recognizes there are things that cannot be contractually done, selling oneself or another into servitude being one, and I hold, that violation of First Sale rights should be another. To do anything else is to undermine the very concept of private ownership. When industry colludes and makes standard the practice of not offering wares for sale under traditional terms, I hold this as an appropriate circumstance for the State to step in, particularly when it is made as obvious that poor faith is at the root of the business practice. Insult me not with assertions that finding a way to extract multiple payments, or extort out recurring revenue by "unlocking" functionality via firmware delivered over the air is anything but poor faith veneered in the illusion of convenience for the customer in light of the purveyor also gaining the capability to at will degrade the product by definition.