4 ms·

what the hell are you talking about? I make my own notes within a book. A lot of times I even add things I have read from other sources in the book I buy. Once

by ujjwalg 17y ago

what the hell are you talking about? I make my own notes within a book. A lot of times I even add things I have read from other sources in the book I buy. Once I own the book, I am allowed to do anything with it as long as I am using it for my own personal use.

GHFigs 17y ago
You own a copy of the book, but you do not own the contents of the book. Similarly, the owner of an iPhone owns the hardware, but does not own the software. Claiming that one should have the same rights over Apple's software that you have over a copy of a book that you own strikes me as nonsensical. I understand that people want Apple's software to allow certain things, but I think stating it as if Apple is impinging on the user's rights because it does not is a dishonest exaggeration.
- ujjwalg 17y ago
  The point I am saying is that when I buy the book, I can do whatever I want with the content as long as it is for my own personal use and am not distributing it. I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. And the same is true for software. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. Same for books.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. It's a very simple point: there is a difference in the rights you have over hardware and software just as there is a difference in the rights you have over a book and the contents of the book. Pretending that the rules of one should apply to the other is nonsensical. The reason this distinction is important is that many people claim that Apple is impinging upon their rights with the restrictions built into the OS, but they don't actually have any rights over the OS and ownership of the hardware does not grant them any. By analogy, owning a book does not grant you any rights over the copyrighted contents. People readily understand the latter, but seem to violently reject the former. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. That is all they do. Why would you think otherwise?
    - igorhvr 17y ago
      > That is all they do. Why would you think otherwise? Not true. Read a bit about "ibricks": http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/more-on-apples-latest-product-the-ibrick/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/more-on-apples-late...
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        Apple does not support jailbroken phones. The users effected chose to install software that does not support their phones. I don't see how Apple can be considered the responsible party.

by ujjwalg 17y ago

GHFigs 17y ago

You own a copy of the book, but you do not own the contents of the book. Similarly, the owner of an iPhone owns the hardware, but does not own the software. Claiming that one should have the same rights over Apple's software that you have over a copy of a book that you own strikes me as nonsensical. I understand that people want Apple's software to allow certain things, but I think stating it as if Apple is impinging on the user's rights because it does not is a dishonest exaggeration.

ujjwalg 17y ago
The point I am saying is that when I buy the book, I can do whatever I want with the content as long as it is for my own personal use and am not distributing it. I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. And the same is true for software. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. Same for books.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  I am not sure why you think its not true or nonsensical by any means. It's a very simple point: there is a difference in the rights you have over hardware and software just as there is a difference in the rights you have over a book and the contents of the book. Pretending that the rules of one should apply to the other is nonsensical. The reason this distinction is important is that many people claim that Apple is impinging upon their rights with the restrictions built into the OS, but they don't actually have any rights over the OS and ownership of the hardware does not grant them any. By analogy, owning a book does not grant you any rights over the copyrighted contents. People readily understand the latter, but seem to violently reject the former. All they should do is void warranty if someone tempers with the OS. That is all they do. Why would you think otherwise?
  - igorhvr 17y ago
    > That is all they do. Why would you think otherwise? Not true. Read a bit about "ibricks": http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/more-on-apples-latest-product-the-ibrick/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/more-on-apples-late...
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Apple does not support jailbroken phones. The users effected chose to install software that does not support their phones. I don't see how Apple can be considered the responsible party.