3 ms·
Nobody is literally referring to the concept of property ownership though, since that's not really what this is about. Of course I literally "own" a device tha
by jchw 3y ago
Nobody is literally referring to the concept of property ownership though, since that's not really what this is about.
Of course I literally "own" a device that I buy, but if the vendor forces me to agree to a ToS and EULA to be allowed (legally, thanks to DMCA) to use the product as advertised and can lock me out at any time, it's truly ownership in name only.
This is about fancy footwork using technological measures to diminish consumer rights and consumer choice without literally violating any law. The law has not caught up to this, but the writing is certainly on the wall.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Nobody is literally referring to the concept of property ownership though I don't see the point of this comment. If you read up in the thread: > Forget about e-waste, it's my fucking property. I paid full price for a full product that is now mine. Not partially mine and partially the manufacturers That doesn't mean there aren't other things to discuss, but people in this section of the comments are talking about ownership.
- jchw 3y agoYes, but we're talking about ownership as a concept, not as a matter of law. I'm not sure how this is getting confused to be honest.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoOwnership is a legal concept. If you want to talk about whether it is good public policy to allow manufacturers to make computer stuffs that are difficult to repair or that have technical restrictions baked in that make it difficult to run software other than that provided by the manufacturer, please have at it. To suggest that this is an ownership discussion is at best intellectually faulty and at worst the sort of hyperventilation that has people rolling their eyes at you.
- jchw 3y agoOwnership is also a concept that humans understand, disconnected from whatever is written into law. In fact, the human understanding of what ownership is ultimately informs what goes into the law. Essentially by asking "who really owns this?" we're literally questioning why this is allowed to happen regarding stuff that we own. All I can say is, you misunderstood what the comment you replied to was saying. You don't have to like it, but it's very evident to me that this is what happened.
- robertlagrant 3y agoNeither of the things I quoted mention the law. Non sequiturs make things confused.