4 ms·

"problem processing payment for this item." is a fraudulent misrepresentation because the seller already had my money. It's also a problem of never owning soft

"problem processing payment for this item." is a fraudulent misrepresentation because the seller already had my money. It's also a problem of never owning software, only a "cloud license" with DRM and an ability to reach-in and delete what you paid for.

duped 4y ago
If you owned the software you'd be guilty of buying stolen property. At least this way you haven't committed a crime.
- badpun 4y ago
  It's impossible to own software. There is no such thing in the laws. You are only owining various rights regarding to it. As a creator, you have all the original rights, and then you can grant some of them to others via licencing, such as the right to make a copy and use the software (this is what is commonly portrayed as "buying software"). Same with all other copyrightable material.
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. Conflating the meaning to the literal word would be an ungracious interpretation. With or without licensure, it's possible to own control over software use with a stand-alone, offline installation source if it lacks the technical means to deny such installation. Nuance in the mainstream landscape of ownership expectations of media changed in the 1980's when software became easily and widely reproducible. Copy-protection and DRM invaded software, then music, film, and finally (e)books as well. Much history will be lost due to an inability to archive works guarded by walled-gardens locked away by DRM.
    - badpun 4y ago
      > It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. I disagree. There's a material difference here - you can only own things in one, total way (they're just yours and you can do with them whatever you please), while licences are granted on certain "fields of exploitation" (not sure if that's the exact term used in US laws - that's how it's called in my country). I.e. you can get licence to use software, but only in academic setting. Or (as is common) get licence to make copies of software, but not resale those copies etc. Or, get licence to use use software, but not to modify it (whereas you can obviously modify a thing that you own in a physical world). Etc, etc. In short, physical ownership and licencing of immaterial works are two different things, and they're only conflated by marketing people in software companies who know that their customers don't want to expend energy to understand those differences anyway, and, what's more important, a "BUY SOFTWARE X" button is much more enticing than a "OBTAIN LICENCE TO SOME LIMITED RIGHTS TO SOFTWARE X" button (which is what is really happening under the hood when we click "BUY").
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  I will read that as sarcasm. :) I guess one truly doesn't and can't own software unless they buy 100% controlling equity in its rights OR create it entirely themselves.

duped 4y ago

If you owned the software you'd be guilty of buying stolen property. At least this way you haven't committed a crime.

badpun 4y ago
It's impossible to own software. There is no such thing in the laws. You are only owining various rights regarding to it. As a creator, you have all the original rights, and then you can grant some of them to others via licencing, such as the right to make a copy and use the software (this is what is commonly portrayed as "buying software"). Same with all other copyrightable material.
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. Conflating the meaning to the literal word would be an ungracious interpretation. With or without licensure, it's possible to own control over software use with a stand-alone, offline installation source if it lacks the technical means to deny such installation. Nuance in the mainstream landscape of ownership expectations of media changed in the 1980's when software became easily and widely reproducible. Copy-protection and DRM invaded software, then music, film, and finally (e)books as well. Much history will be lost due to an inability to archive works guarded by walled-gardens locked away by DRM.
  - badpun 4y ago
    > It's only possible to own software by owning the rights to it, but the de facto and ordinary use of the word is to own a legal license to it. I disagree. There's a material difference here - you can only own things in one, total way (they're just yours and you can do with them whatever you please), while licences are granted on certain "fields of exploitation" (not sure if that's the exact term used in US laws - that's how it's called in my country). I.e. you can get licence to use software, but only in academic setting. Or (as is common) get licence to make copies of software, but not resale those copies etc. Or, get licence to use use software, but not to modify it (whereas you can obviously modify a thing that you own in a physical world). Etc, etc. In short, physical ownership and licencing of immaterial works are two different things, and they're only conflated by marketing people in software companies who know that their customers don't want to expend energy to understand those differences anyway, and, what's more important, a "BUY SOFTWARE X" button is much more enticing than a "OBTAIN LICENCE TO SOME LIMITED RIGHTS TO SOFTWARE X" button (which is what is really happening under the hood when we click "BUY").
sacnoradhq 4y ago
I will read that as sarcasm. :) I guess one truly doesn't and can't own software unless they buy 100% controlling equity in its rights OR create it entirely themselves.