Re: VAX software available for download

From: Michael Kraemer (m.kraemer_at_gsi.de)
Date: 06/28/05 

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:17:12 +0000 (UTC)

In article <3id0ouFkre59U3@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> >
> > What makes you think so ?
> > All I want is to have full control over goods I buy,
> > be it a car or a piece of software on CD or whatever.
>
> That doesn't apply to any other product, why should it apply to software?
> You can't drive your car as fast as you want on the street.
> You can't shoot your gun anywhere or at anything you want.
> You can't burn your house down.
> You can't start a pig farm on your 50x50 backyard in the middle of town.
>
> The list just goes on and on. Why would software be different?

Your list comprises stuff which is unlawful anyway,
no matter if you "own" the car, the house, etc.
But I can sell my house to somebody else without asking the
guy from whom I bought it. And that should apply to software too.

> > I don't see any *good* reason why it shouldn't be this way.
>
> Simple, because the original owner said no and you agreed to his terms
> when you bought it. If you don't like the terms, negotiate better terms
> or find another product. But don't expect the whole world to bend to
> your will because it's you.
>
> >
> >> You really, really, really, REALLY don't know what you're
> >> talking about. Now you have a million lawyers invovled.
> >
> > Why ? If the law is crystal-clear consumer-friendly instead
> > of producer-friendly there's no need to involve a lawyer.
>
> But the producer is the owner. It's his property to do with as he
> pleases. The current law is crystal-clear producer(owner)-friendly.

A law is not carved in stone forever.
Many laws have changed in favor of customers.
A future law could forbid the producers to impose usage
restrictions once they sold their software, whilst
still keeping IP rights in the sense that replication is not allowed.
Some producers (like you) might not like it and go out
of business, some will arrange with it (and I can see
not reason why that shouldn't be possible).

> Why should any law be in your favor as opposed to the owners?

Because someday more consumers may want more rights ?
Because there are more consumers than producers (your sig comes to mind) ?

> Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Your point of view sounds pretty arrogant to me as well.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eminent Domain Abuse
    ... then of course it is possible to deprive them of land. ... The value of a car is produced by those who labor on it. ... Private ownership of land, therefore, unlike ownership of a car, ... neither the car's producers nor anyone who directly or indirectly paid ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: car insurance- car seized
    ... someone is stopped late at night for the 'offence' of their car not being ... He has to pay it because the law says he must. ... What happened to producers? ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Does Outsourcing Piss you off?
    ... The market works by constantly giving incentives for producers to ... the demand for car assembly ... skills in humans decreased and wages decreased to signal to workers to ... a worker who lost his job has ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: car insurance- car seized
    ... someone is stopped late at night for the 'offence' of their car not being on ... He has to pay it because the law says he must. ... What happened to producers? ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... > You can't drive your car as fast as you want on the street. ... no matter if you "own" the car, the house, etc. ... A law is not carved in stone forever. ... A future law could forbid the producers to impose usage ...
    (comp.sys.dec)