6 ms·

I don't live here; I just rent. Sometimes it's OK to just rent. If I want to own, I'll move elsewhere.

crististm 14y ago
I guess that your landlord can come tonight and check if you are sleeping alone, and you can't tell him it's not his business.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  No, my landlord and I have an agreement that stipulates the terms under which they can enter the place I rent, and I trust them to honor them. Ultimately, they have a key though. It's a risk I accept. The most valid argument that I can think of is that, in a "device appliance" context, many people aren't aware that they're renting. I don't suspect that they'd change to owning once they understood that they're renting, but it might make them more sensitive to the agreement under which they are renting.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >and I trust them to honor them. Except that with renting property you have specific rights clearly defined, and there are people with guns and handcuffs and jails to uphold them. You have no rights at all with your phone, and nobody to keep your "landlord" honest. Nevermind the obvious fact that you are not renting your phone, you purchased the device, it is your sole property.
    - bradleyland 14y ago
      I agree that we need a better set of baseline laws protecting consumers who "rent" devices from unfair practices, but I don't think that's relevant to your second statement. I do own my phone. I have every right to throw it off a cliff if I want to. I do not own the software that runs on it. I license it, and when I bought the phone, I agreed to that license. Apple cannot stop me (legally) from running whatever software I like on my iPhone. The caveat is that they're under no obligation to make that easy. I bought the device knowing what software it runs. Were I to buy the device with the intention of running different software, then caveat emptor applies. Apple does not represent that their mobile devices can run any other software, so I really don't see where there's a valid argument that these "renters" are anything but consensual. I have the right to do whatever I want with the device, but I may not have the ability. When you get down to it, the argument being made is that one should want to own, rather than rent. Go ahead and make that argument, but it's not fair to dress it up under the precept of "rights".
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        >I license it, and when I bought the phone, I agreed to that license. That's the claim they want you to accept, but it isn't true in many jurisdictions, and in those where it is (US) people should be fighting to fix that mistake, not using it to excuse immoral behaviour. I do not require a license to use software. I did not agree to any license when I purchased my phone. I did not sign any contract. >Apple cannot stop me (legally) from running whatever software I like on my iPhone. This contradicts your previous claim that you do not own the software, and that you must abide by some license. Their license says "you can't bypass the restrictions we put on you". You can't argue that you are both bound to it, and not bound to it. >but it's not fair to dress it up under the precept of "rights". Why not? We have rights in other areas, specifically to protect people against predatory companies doing shitty things because "haha you agreed to it!".
        bradleyland 14y ago
        You're conflating use of hardware with a restriction on software. They are not the same. If you can find a way to load Linux on an iPhone, Apple won't even bother to try and stop you. I agree that we should have better laws protecting consumers from abuse, but I'm not sure what to make of "I do not require a license to use software". If I create something that I do not want to give away, I expect to be able to define some restrictions on its use. You may have a different expectation, but I don't think you have majority support on that.
        papsosouid 14y ago
        >You're conflating use of hardware with a restriction on software. No, you are assuming the only case of software restriction is limiting my OS choice. Apple works very hard to try to stop people from helping others to fix their crippled phones, so that they can install sofware on them that apple has not approved. >I'm not sure what to make of "I do not require a license to use software" Software is protected by copyright. Just like other creative works, like a book for example. Copyright gives the author exclusive rights to certain things, like distribution, copying, and creating derivative works. It does not give them exclusive rights to use the work. Copyright law prevents you from selling a book written by someone else (without their permission). It does not prevent you from reading it. The same is true of software. You can't sell itunes, but you are entirely within your rights to use it. >You may have a different expectation, but I don't think you have majority support on that. The law supports me on that.
WayneDB 14y ago
The problem becomes obvious when you discover that there's no place to move in order to own. When you have no choice, are you really renting or are you a serf? Even if you think that you own your phone, you still have to get it onto a network for it to become useful and you'll be renting that network access and you'll have no choice between contracts because they're all the same.
- pekk 14y ago
  They aren't all the same. 3 years of contract at $70+/mo != prepaid $30/mo != prepaid 10c/min.
  - WayneDB 14y ago
    They are all the same in many respects though. Do any of them offer true unlimited data? Tethering? Usage of unlocked phones? Decent coverage? Data privacy?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - JadeNB 14y ago
      Well, none of them offers a pony, either. I think that only one of these (data privacy) is a right; that (2)–(5) are conveniences; and that true unlimited data is impossible (assuming you mean "… at a fixed price").
      - WayneDB 14y ago
        However, if I want to own a pony I certainly have the option of purchasing one. 2-5 are perfectly reasonable offerings and the corporations that control the data pipes have all accepted our tax breaks which contribute to them being able to maintain their virtual monopolies. My point is that the rent analogy does not work at all. It's too simple.
- CamperBob2 14y ago

I guess that your landlord can come tonight and check if you are sleeping alone, and you can't tell him it's not his business.

bradleyland 14y ago
No, my landlord and I have an agreement that stipulates the terms under which they can enter the place I rent, and I trust them to honor them. Ultimately, they have a key though. It's a risk I accept. The most valid argument that I can think of is that, in a "device appliance" context, many people aren't aware that they're renting. I don't suspect that they'd change to owning once they understood that they're renting, but it might make them more sensitive to the agreement under which they are renting.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >and I trust them to honor them. Except that with renting property you have specific rights clearly defined, and there are people with guns and handcuffs and jails to uphold them. You have no rights at all with your phone, and nobody to keep your "landlord" honest. Nevermind the obvious fact that you are not renting your phone, you purchased the device, it is your sole property.
  - bradleyland 14y ago
    I agree that we need a better set of baseline laws protecting consumers who "rent" devices from unfair practices, but I don't think that's relevant to your second statement. I do own my phone. I have every right to throw it off a cliff if I want to. I do not own the software that runs on it. I license it, and when I bought the phone, I agreed to that license. Apple cannot stop me (legally) from running whatever software I like on my iPhone. The caveat is that they're under no obligation to make that easy. I bought the device knowing what software it runs. Were I to buy the device with the intention of running different software, then caveat emptor applies. Apple does not represent that their mobile devices can run any other software, so I really don't see where there's a valid argument that these "renters" are anything but consensual. I have the right to do whatever I want with the device, but I may not have the ability. When you get down to it, the argument being made is that one should want to own, rather than rent. Go ahead and make that argument, but it's not fair to dress it up under the precept of "rights".
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >I license it, and when I bought the phone, I agreed to that license. That's the claim they want you to accept, but it isn't true in many jurisdictions, and in those where it is (US) people should be fighting to fix that mistake, not using it to excuse immoral behaviour. I do not require a license to use software. I did not agree to any license when I purchased my phone. I did not sign any contract. >Apple cannot stop me (legally) from running whatever software I like on my iPhone. This contradicts your previous claim that you do not own the software, and that you must abide by some license. Their license says "you can't bypass the restrictions we put on you". You can't argue that you are both bound to it, and not bound to it. >but it's not fair to dress it up under the precept of "rights". Why not? We have rights in other areas, specifically to protect people against predatory companies doing shitty things because "haha you agreed to it!".
      - bradleyland 14y ago
        You're conflating use of hardware with a restriction on software. They are not the same. If you can find a way to load Linux on an iPhone, Apple won't even bother to try and stop you. I agree that we should have better laws protecting consumers from abuse, but I'm not sure what to make of "I do not require a license to use software". If I create something that I do not want to give away, I expect to be able to define some restrictions on its use. You may have a different expectation, but I don't think you have majority support on that.
        papsosouid 14y ago
        >You're conflating use of hardware with a restriction on software. No, you are assuming the only case of software restriction is limiting my OS choice. Apple works very hard to try to stop people from helping others to fix their crippled phones, so that they can install sofware on them that apple has not approved. >I'm not sure what to make of "I do not require a license to use software" Software is protected by copyright. Just like other creative works, like a book for example. Copyright gives the author exclusive rights to certain things, like distribution, copying, and creating derivative works. It does not give them exclusive rights to use the work. Copyright law prevents you from selling a book written by someone else (without their permission). It does not prevent you from reading it. The same is true of software. You can't sell itunes, but you are entirely within your rights to use it. >You may have a different expectation, but I don't think you have majority support on that. The law supports me on that.

WayneDB 14y ago

The problem becomes obvious when you discover that there's no place to move in order to own. When you have no choice, are you really renting or are you a serf? Even if you think that you own your phone, you still have to get it onto a network for it to become useful and you'll be renting that network access and you'll have no choice between contracts because they're all the same.

pekk 14y ago
They aren't all the same. 3 years of contract at $70+/mo != prepaid $30/mo != prepaid 10c/min.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  They are all the same in many respects though. Do any of them offer true unlimited data? Tethering? Usage of unlocked phones? Decent coverage? Data privacy?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - JadeNB 14y ago
    Well, none of them offers a pony, either. I think that only one of these (data privacy) is a right; that (2)–(5) are conveniences; and that true unlimited data is impossible (assuming you mean "… at a fixed price").
    - WayneDB 14y ago
      However, if I want to own a pony I certainly have the option of purchasing one. 2-5 are perfectly reasonable offerings and the corporations that control the data pipes have all accepted our tax breaks which contribute to them being able to maintain their virtual monopolies. My point is that the rent analogy does not work at all. It's too simple.
CamperBob2 14y ago