Quick question of ethical judgment

[Jagermh]

Technicaly you can do anything with your data since you own it, you have the right to make as many copies of it as you want and use them freely however you want as long as you don't break any other laws in doing so.

[Marthos]

Technicaly you can do anything with your data since you own it, you have the right to make as many copies of it as you want and use them freely however you want as long as you don't break any other laws in doing so.

 

 

Unfortunely thats incorrect.

 

When you pay for your software, you are not buying the software, you are buying a limited license to use that software, in most countries you are entitled make one copy of the software as back up.

 

A lot of EULA's state a lot of things, but depending on your region of residence, some things will be applcable and somethings won't.

[Surenas]

Unfortunely thats incorrect.

 

When you pay for your software, you are not buying the software, you are buying a limited license to use that software, in most countries you are entitled make one copy of the software as back up.

 

A lot of EULA's state a lot of things, but depending on your region of residence, some things will be applcable and somethings won't.

 

A limited license to use the software... that's the CD/CDR one has bought. Now it's juridically nonsense to state that the hardware as media of the software would ever remain in the possession of the distributor or developer. Same is the case with printed "software", our books. We buy the stuff - we possess it. You see, we are always dealing exclusively with software here and the attempts of the owners to keep their stuff copyrighted. It is important to know that license agreements are only as and when juridical effective when they are visibly part of the original deal. Unfortunately almost nobody (online purchases factored out!) signes a contract when he buys a book or a game software. License agreements for a setup routine that show up first in the moment of installation, that is after the purchase of the ware, are legal ineffective trade terms for delivered in addition to the already consummated purchase. It should be clear the the Eula is the problem for both parties and not the copyright. The idea to hire software is simply a stillborn one. A copyright sign (as you'll find in any book) does juridically nicely as well.

[TheTerminator2004]

Unfortunely thats incorrect.

 

When you pay for your software, you are not buying the software, you are buying a limited license to use that software, in most countries you are entitled make one copy of the software as back up.

 

A lot of EULA's state a lot of things, but depending on your region of residence, some things will be applcable and somethings won't.

 

A limited license to use the software... that's the CD/CDR one has bought. Now it's juridically nonsense to state that the hardware as media of the software would ever remain in the possession of the distributor or developer. Same is the case with printed "software", our books. We buy the stuff - we possess it. You see, we are always dealing exclusively with software here and the attempts of the owners to keep their stuff copyrighted. It is important to know that license agreements are only as and when juridical effective when they are visibly part of the original deal. Unfortunately almost nobody (online purchases factored out!) signes a contract when he buys a book or a game software. License agreements for a setup routine that show up first in the moment of installation, that is after the purchase of the ware, are legal ineffective trade terms for delivered in addition to the already consummated purchase. It should be clear the the Eula is the problem for both parties and not the copyright. The idea to hire software is simply a stillborn one. A copyright sign (as you'll find in any book) does juridically nicely as well.

 

I agree EULAs are legally unenforcable. But until it gets challenged in court, publishers will continue to make use of them.

[Marthos]

Just to make one thing clear:

 

I didn't say that I agreed with content of most EULA's, as some of them actually transgress the law depending on your country of origin and some of them can be borderline ridiculous and whether any of them would stand up in court is debatable to say the least, unless your second name is Gates.

 

However, the fact remains that regardless of the fact that you dislike, disagree or otherwise have any other issue with it, "you are buying a licence to use the software" as the intent of the actual owner of the software or holder of the rights to the software is to let you "use" said software. If the owner or rights holder of the software was actually selling you the software, it would cost you a damn sight more than what you would pay for a game in the shop.

 

 

Debate it as much as you wish, its a fact and you won't change it with an opinion of how "you" think it should be.

[Surenas]

Just to make one thing clear:

 

[snip]

If the owner or rights holder of the software was actually selling you the software, it would cost you a damn sight more than what you would pay for a game in the shop.

 

Debate it as much as you wish, its a fact and you won't change it with an opinion of how "you" think it should be.

The only fact is that you're referring to a classical myth - the car salesman myth that leasing of a product (and that's what we're doing here) would be cheaper than buying. That's rather too-too, as my grandma might have muttered.

[Marthos]

And as I said, your opinion of it won't change the fact that the software owner or rights holders intent is to sell you a license to use the software, not to sell you the software itself.

 

 

You can use as many different anologies as you wish Surenas, it won't change that fact.

[Surenas]

And as I said, your opinion of it won't change the fact that the software owner or rights holders intent is to sell you a license to use the software, not to sell you the software itself.

 

 

You can use as many different anologies as you wish Surenas, it won't change that fact.

 

That goes both ways, Marthos. Intentions are one thing, waterproofness is quite another

[TheTerminator2004]

Unfortunately, while the EULA agreements are legally dodgy, theres no getting round the fact that they are only selling licenses, not actual products. Whether it's right or not is most definitely up for debate, but there's no getting round the fact that copyright and IP laws apply. The entire concept of intellectual property was built around this fact.

[Surenas]

Unfortunately, while the EULA agreements are legally dodgy, theres no getting round the fact that they are only selling licenses, not actual products. Whether it's right or not is most definitely up for debate, but there's no getting round the fact that copyright and IP laws apply. The entire concept of intellectual property was built around this fact.

Notwithstanding the copyright, it doesn't explain the use of a highly questionable leasing principle here. Where is, compared to print media, the advantage? I tell you - in this way the value of the product is not freely convertible on the market, i.e. probably too high set, what else?