4 ms·

Article is just wrong. One does not own software on device he buys. Software ownership means that one can issue new licenses, which is clearly not a case here.

by jkot 12y ago

Article is just wrong. One does not own software on device he buys. Software ownership means that one can issue new licenses, which is clearly not a case here. One can not just start selling Windows, because he bought laptop where they are installed. You just get license to use software. But other side is customer protection. One buys tractor with expectation to be able to fix it and modify it. If that is not true, John Deere is selling broken stuff, and customers should get their money back.

vonmoltke 12y ago
> Article is just wrong. One does not own software on device he buys. Software ownership means that one can issue new licenses, which is clearly not a case here. One can not just start selling Windows, because he bought laptop where they are installed. You just get license to use software. This idea needs to die. Copyright ownership means that one can make and distribute copies of software. Software ownership means you own one or more copies, which you should be able to with as you wish within the bounds of copyright law. You do not need a license to use a book; you do to copy it. Software should be the same, and that companies like Deere, GM, and 8,476 software companies are trying to assert the validity of this "license to use" is a perversion of copyright law.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Exactly. If I buy a book, I can write on the pages. I can fold, spindle, and mutilate. I can rip out a page. I own that book. I can't sell a copy, though - not even a copy of my modified, ripped up version. Not without a license from the author/publisher of the original.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    John Deere would say that you can reflash, smash, or replace the eeeprom if you want. But you can't create a new piece of software based on the old one. I think you should be able too, because what is the harm, but I don't think the book analogy holds. You aren't allowed to rewrite a book, even if you keep the copy yourself.
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      If I understand correctly, yes, you absolutely are allowed to rewrite a book if you keep the copy yourself.
      - rhino369 12y ago
        I think you could argue that it is fair use, and maybe it is, but you are creative a derivative work. That is copyright infringement, unless the fair use exception fits.
        AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        No, distributing the derivative work is a violation of copyright. Creating it isn't. (Disclaimer: IANAL. This is my understanding of the law, but is not legal advice.)
        rhino369 12y ago
        "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" 17 U.S. Code § 106 The mere act of preparing it is enough. I am a lawyer, but this is still not legal advice.
        AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        Hmm. All right, contrary to the law, but wouldn't the damages be zero if you don't distribute? That is, while technically illegal, wouldn't there be no penalty? [Note well: still not legal advice.]

by jkot 12y ago

vonmoltke 12y ago

> Article is just wrong. One does not own software on device he buys. Software ownership means that one can issue new licenses, which is clearly not a case here. One can not just start selling Windows, because he bought laptop where they are installed. You just get license to use software. This idea needs to die. Copyright ownership means that one can make and distribute copies of software. Software ownership means you own one or more copies, which you should be able to with as you wish within the bounds of copyright law. You do not need a license to use a book; you do to copy it. Software should be the same, and that companies like Deere, GM, and 8,476 software companies are trying to assert the validity of this "license to use" is a perversion of copyright law.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Exactly. If I buy a book, I can write on the pages. I can fold, spindle, and mutilate. I can rip out a page. I own that book. I can't sell a copy, though - not even a copy of my modified, ripped up version. Not without a license from the author/publisher of the original.
- rhino369 12y ago
  John Deere would say that you can reflash, smash, or replace the eeeprom if you want. But you can't create a new piece of software based on the old one. I think you should be able too, because what is the harm, but I don't think the book analogy holds. You aren't allowed to rewrite a book, even if you keep the copy yourself.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    If I understand correctly, yes, you absolutely are allowed to rewrite a book if you keep the copy yourself.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      I think you could argue that it is fair use, and maybe it is, but you are creative a derivative work. That is copyright infringement, unless the fair use exception fits.
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        No, distributing the derivative work is a violation of copyright. Creating it isn't. (Disclaimer: IANAL. This is my understanding of the law, but is not legal advice.)
        rhino369 12y ago
        "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" 17 U.S. Code § 106 The mere act of preparing it is enough. I am a lawyer, but this is still not legal advice.
        AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        Hmm. All right, contrary to the law, but wouldn't the damages be zero if you don't distribute? That is, while technically illegal, wouldn't there be no penalty? [Note well: still not legal advice.]