Eula's..... Many ?s

[bookem dano]

Why is it legal for a company to limit a household to one install for a software package? (I agree with it for businesses and home based businesses)

Can Herbal Essence prosecute you if you don't rinse and repeat? Why don't you have to buy one newspaper or magazine or book for every family member? Why is Software any different? Why is software not considered a consumable product?

Why don't large companies give a 'household' license that may cost slightly higher than the original? That would be the simplest way of eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, casual piracy.

Look at MP3s. When they first came out, the music industry hated them. They were traded online like crazy, mainly b/c cd's were overpriced, especially the singles. Consumers wanted an alternative that the industry didn't want/think of. When it came about, consumers flocked to it. Now that a few pay services exists that have just about as much choice and variety as the illegal sites, the pay services are booming. Consumers now have a choice, and their voices were finally heard. These legal MP3 services continue to get more and more users. Finally the consumer has won.

If windows is $80 for a single license and a whole household license is 100-120, how many people would really be complaining? Here the public would have a VIABLE alternative to something that is currently ridiculous. What makes this worse, is that I could theoretically still be running windows 98 just fine, but now MS doesn't support it and all it's flaws/security holes. It forces me to upgrade just to make sure some 13 year old kid isn't corrupting my computer. These EULAs were made back in the day that a computer cost a lot of money to buy and most folk couldn't afford, or even think of having two. Nowadays, many households have multiple pcs.

I am 110% against the people that are pirating OS and software and selling it. That is wrong. It is wrong for me to allow my neighbor to install it. Why is it wrong for my children to install it? Some parts of these EULAs are utter BS(someone told me the latest version of a phot viewing program prohibits viewing pornography in their EULA) and I don't see how/why the company has the 'right' to make and enforce such claims.

 

[EULA]

I'd answer your questions, but I'm a busy man... In fact, over 7,955 people are currently trying to view me while I type this...

 

[bersl2]

Programs are information, just like other data. And data that have beeen made digital are now duplicatable at practically zero cost. However, the fact of the matter is that most people don't look at it this way, most out of ignorance, but some out of drive for profit. They still operate under a model of scarcity, which is true for the physical world, which is why we have an economy. Information also used to be scarce, because the cost of transferring the information was great enough that an economy was supported. However, the Internet has provided us the first global way to transfer information at a nearly constant* natural cost, regardless of how much or what quality information is received. An economy based on information thus is not supported, because there is no scarcity.

Unless you want to impose scarcity on it, which is what copyright does. The "modern" notion of copyright basically came from Victor Hugo throwing a hissy fit that his books were being published in other countries. Of course, at this time, publishing books, being the best form of transfer, dealt in terms of big money and involved the sale of physical media carrying the information as well. Since the cost of a press , the ink, the typeheads, and the time to reprint a book was so great, it was impossible to spread information without possibly making a profit; profit was a necessity of continued information distribution. Therefore, that the originator of this information should have exclusive rights to the spreading of his information made sense.

While this is still somewhat true with printing today, the information can still be carried in such a way that scarcity isn't an issue. There is no need to make a profit from the redistribution of information; furthermore, trying to sell it as a physical object doesn't work, because it is no longer tied to any single physical medium. It's a change in paradigm, and until so many of the people in power have realized just how much the game has changed, it's going to be painful to watch them flail around in their death throes, taking out a few bystanders in the process.

But until that system collapses, if you don't agree with the terms of distribution laid out for you, don't use it.

* This is arguable, in that bandwidth is also sold with a price as a function of total data transfer with respect to time. Even so, the cost of data is still not based on the quality of what that data is.

 

[velis]

Let me attempt a somewhat uneducated approach on this:
Although I do agree that newspaper comparison is somewhat valid, you can't translate it directly to SW usage. Two people would have quite a hard time reading the same newspaper at once (to be more specific - the same page of it). SW installed on two computers allows two users to perform the same functions at the same time without constraints, more so: it allows ONE user to perform the same functions multiple-fold at the same time.
EULAs are based on benefit principle (that's the way I understand it, so no flames please). If you benefit from a piece of SW, then you should pay for it. Installing the SW on multiple computers tells the ISV you have _some_ benefit doing so, but the ISV can't tell _what_ the exact benefit is. They can't come into your house to check what it is exactly you want to accomplish by doing that. That's why they take the "safe" approach by forcing you to pay for each of those copies. This is supposed to make you think twice about your actual needs (you will buy only one copy) and at the same time make more money for the ISV (you decide you really DO need that extra copy of PhotoShop). It's actually not such a bad principle. The only problem I see with it is trying the SW out: If I need a 2D imaging SW, I have to rely on money back guarantees in order to try multiple programs. The alternative, of course, is "pirating" to determine which SW best suits your needs.
Just so there are no misunderstandings: I too would like too see something like "household type" licenses, but I tend to believe we won't see them soon, at least for the more commonly used SW.

Jure

 

[bookem dano]

Thanks for the replies, but it still doesn't really answer my question. I still see it as I purchase an object and I should be able to use the object however I darn well please. I don't care if that object has information on it or not. It could be a tinker toy for all I care.

I benefit from the SW, that's why I pay for it. But why does my benefit have to equal the benefit my neighbor gets? It really will never be the same. If I use my computer daily, I get more benefit out of it than the guy that uses it weekly but we both pay the same for the single license. Its not about benefit. To go over to the deep end, if you follow the benefit logic reasoning to the absurd, some day we will be paying MS for every cpu cycle we get because we benefited from that.

Companies don't care what consumers want as a medium for distribution. They will fight any change until the public as a whole demands it. MP3s and their illegal swapping was the first time any indurstry had to deal with the public taking matters into their own hands. Most of the time the public has no cohesive voice but this time they did and it still took far too long for the companies to listen.

As for the newspaper analogy...why does it have to be the same page? The OS would be physical paper and ink while your programs would be the sections or individual pages. And at that, it should not be illegal for me to copy said page to share in my own household. If I buy a loaf of bread, I can share it with my family members without breaking the law. The bread is finite and so is software. the bread's end is when the last piece is devoured. the software's end, especially in the OS, is when the company forgoes support for it. the amount of times I share that loaf is infinite if i have an infinetly thin knife, just like software.

I guess one of my qualms is that I cannot see what sort of actual moral principle me installing an OS on multiple systems comprimises. The people that are thinking, 'well, that's stealing and stealing is wrong', I'm asking WHY is it stealing. Is it only stealing b/c the company says it is? What gives the company the right to say that it is stealing?

As long as I install software on devices that I own and am not reselling there should not be any sort of illegal activity. I am not taking one man's work for my gain b/c I already paid for it.

Again, these are my views for private individuals, not the business sector.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm kind of with you, and kind of not. My first incilation is to agree, but there's a different way of looking at it. If you bought a car for yourself and then found you needed one for your wife, would it be ok to make a copy if replication was possible? You already bought it once, why buy a second car if you can make an easy copy?

Software developers need to live also. The product of their labor is mostly intangible, but it isn't any less work than a car maker, furniture maker, or toy maker. Your computer can't run without an operating system. It's no more than a doorstop unless you have software to make it work. There are free alternatives of course. Linux for your computer, and walking for your wife :^).

All of that said, I like your idea of a household license. That would kind of split the difference between the developers making money, and the users being able to put the software on multiple computers.

 

[bookem dano]

If I'm handy enough to forge my own vehicle, sure. I couldn't sell that car though. If we use the benefit analogy, I should have paid more than a single person since my wife and kids get the benefit of that car too.

Would you believe that I am actually a software developer? The EULAs for businesses drive most of the developing world. I'd say it's more work than a car/furniture/toy maker b/c they know what they want when they start out, we get to decipher the flub between all the business rules that the owners of the project seldom fully understand. My view of that may be slanted on the fact that I've only developed for one company.

I veiw the EULA of an OS different than other programs. OS is essential to the computer and it's essential in the computing world to have a few standard OS. If they made it possible that all OS had to have roughly the same functionality or could run programs between the two, you would have alternatives and a more balanced marketplace. Cable and satelite is a great example of viable alternatives. Each has it's own drawbacks, but regardless of the system you can still get the majority of the desired content between them.

Lets break the family out of this. Lets say I have a computer fettish. Every room in my home has a computer. Lets go overboard and say each room has multiple. If I install a software product on each computer, I've got no way that I can physically be using more than 1 of those installs at a time. These EULAs prohibit my use of the product.

 

[mechBgon]

Lets break the family out of this. Lets say I have a computer fettish. Every room in my home has a computer. Lets go overboard and say each room has multiple. If I install a software product on each computer, I've got no way that I can physically be using more than 1 of those installs at a time. These EULAs prohibit my use of the product.

You can easily be using the product on several computers concurrently, in meaningful ways. Some examples of things your computer can do while you're not sitting right there in front of it:

[*]encoding media
[*]capturing from a camcorder
[*]"taping" live TV so you can watch it later
[*]3DS Max render farm?
[*]file & print serving
[*]hosting backup from other systems
[*]web serving
[*]compiling
[*]"downloading" (euphemism for you-know-what)

Eh? Try again.

Bigger picture: some software is indeed licensed on a "use-it-in-any-one-place-at-a-time" basis rather than "install-on-any-one-computer" basis. My WinZip license and my trueSpace 4.3 license are both valid for installation on multiple PCs with the understanding that I use them on only one PC at a time.

My Adobe Premiere Elements/Photoshop Elements is licensed for use on a work PC and a home PC with the understanding that again, I only use one instance at a time. If I want to run it at home while my work PC is busy capturing MiniDV overnight, then AFAIC it's perfectly fair to expect me to buy a second license. A second license only costs money, after all, not something important like my integrity

 

[Nothinman]

I still see it as I purchase an object and I should be able to use the object however I darn well please. I don't care if that object has information on it or not. It could be a tinker toy for all I care.

The thing is, you don't own Windows, MS does. You paid for a license to be able to use it on one machine. MS owns the software, you're just paying them for the right to use their property. If you rented a room that's meant to hold 2 people and you sneak 2 more in, don't you think the hotel will be angry? Would you even try to argue with the hotel manager that you paid for the room so you should be allowed to put as many people in there as you want?

And when you buy a car, you own that car. You can do whatever you want with it (besides kill people and such) and usually they come with more than one seat so it's assumed you can transport more than yourself in it =) If you bought a car with 2 seats would you complain that you can't transport 4 people in it?

 

[bookem dano]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The thing is, you don't own Windows, MS does. You paid for a license to be able to use it on one machine. MS owns the software, you're just paying them for the right to use their property.

MS does own the source code and I cannot rebundle their software at all. I didn't buy the source code, I bought the compiled product. I bought the product. It is a product that happens to be software, but it is still a product. If I'm going to use their product as the basis of another product that I am building/using for sale, then I should be buying a license to use that product.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I still see it as I purchase an object and I should be able to use the object however I darn well please. I don't care if that object has information on it or not. It could be a tinker toy for all I care.

The thing is, you don't own Windows, MS does. You paid for a license to be able to use it on one machine. MS owns the software, you're just paying them for the right to use their property. If you rented a room that's meant to hold 2 people and you sneak 2 more in, don't you think the hotel will be angry? Would you even try to argue with the hotel manager that you paid for the room so you should be allowed to put as many people in there as you want?

And when you buy a car, you own that car. You can do whatever you want with it (besides kill people and such) and usually they come with more than one seat so it's assumed you can transport more than yourself in it =) If you bought a car with 2 seats would you complain that you can't transport 4 people in it?

Let's get one thing straight: Despite what the powers that be claim through assumption, the doctrine of idea-as-property is very much disputed. An idea is not a physical object, and it does not have the same properties as a physical object, so why must it necessarily be treated similarly?

 

[Skel]

Originally posted by: EULA
I'd answer your questions, but I'm a busy man... In fact, over 7,955 people are currently trying to view me while I type this...

Funniest thing I've read all night

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: bookem dano

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The thing is, you don't own Windows, MS does. You paid for a license to be able to use it on one machine. MS owns the software, you're just paying them for the right to use their property.

MS does own the source code and I cannot rebundle their software at all. I didn't buy the source code, I bought the compiled product. I bought the product. It is a product that happens to be software, but it is still a product. If I'm going to use their product as the basis of another product that I am building/using for sale, then I should be buying a license to use that product.

No, you bought a license to use the compiled product; the software just happens to come with the license, on physical media. You can obtain the software without having bought a license from Microsoft; you just aren't legally entitled to use the software without having obtained the license. And obtaining a license requires that you follow the terms of the license; most of the time, failure to follow the terms of a license after having agreed to said terms results in the automatic cancellation of the license, meaning that you are technically infringing with continued use after breaking the terms and are technically liable for damages ($$$).

Look, if you want to use the big boys' stuff, you have to play by their rules. That is the way things are, and that is why I don't use their stuff anymore. Given your current attitude, I would advise that you no longer use their stuff either, or change your attitude.

 

[mechBgon]

I didn't buy the source code, I bought the compiled product.

If you're referring to Microsoft Windows...

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP.
Manufacturer, MS and its suppliers (including Microsoft
Corporation) reserve all rights not expressly granted to
you in this EULA. The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright
and other intellectual property laws and treaties.
Manufacturer, MS and its suppliers (including Microsoft
Corporation) own the title, copyright, and other
intellectual property rights in the SOFTWARE. The
SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold.

Can I suggest you go live in the Sudan for a couple years, and then return to wherever you live (I'm guessing the United States) and appreciate that the worst horror in your life is merely having to buy multiple software licenses.

 

[n0cmonkey]

BSD is free in almost all respects. Use better software and forget about Windows and restrictive licenses. It's a win-win situation.

 

[Nothinman]

forget about Windows and restrictive licenses. It's a win-win situation.

No pun intended? =)

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

forget about Windows and restrictive licenses. It's a win-win situation.

No pun intended? =)

/me prods you guys, argue about 3D acceleration again!


Actually, with you guys I can actually use the word "debate" instead of "argue"

 

[bookem dano]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

I didn't buy the source code, I bought the compiled product.

If you're referring to Microsoft Windows...

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP.
Manufacturer, MS and its suppliers (including Microsoft
Corporation) reserve all rights not expressly granted to
you in this EULA. The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright
and other intellectual property laws and treaties.
Manufacturer, MS and its suppliers (including Microsoft
Corporation) own the title, copyright, and other
intellectual property rights in the SOFTWARE. The
SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold.

If you followed this thread at all you would realize that this VERY thing is what I am questioning.

Can my grocery store merely license the fruit it sells me? No, it can't. So I ask again, under what fundamental principal gives MS the right to license its products to home users? Again, as to avoid some confusion, I do agree with licensing on businesses and entities that are using the product as part of their business or are using it as part of a product they themselves are developing.

 

[bookem dano]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
You can easily be using the product on several computers concurrently, in meaningful ways.

I can also use my VCR to copy movies, but that doesn't make VCRs illegal. That's because there exists very legal uses. The example I gave never said that the computers were networked, just that I had multiple in every room of the house.

 

[Nothinman]

Can my grocery store merely license the fruit it sells me? No, it can't

Because it's a physical product that you buy and use and it's gone. Once you eat the fruit you can't give it back to them. If that same store had a delivery service that you could pay extra for, do you really think you could pay the fee and then expect more than one delivery?

So I ask again, under what fundamental principal gives MS the right to license its products to home users?

The fact that people agree to it is enough, you license their software like you would a service and you agreed to those licensing terms when you installed the software. If you don't like it, stop using their software.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Use Linux, it's fairly free (for varying definitions of free). No license fees.

 

[bookem dano]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Can my grocery store merely license the fruit it sells me? No, it can't

Because it's a physical product that you buy and use and it's gone. Once you eat the fruit you can't give it back to them. If that same store had a delivery service that you could pay extra for, do you really think you could pay the fee and then expect more than one delivery?

Software is a physical product. Windows 95, 98, 98se, ME, and 2000 have all perished, just like that suculent fruit at the store. I pay for the delivery of each different version of OS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bookem dano

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Can my grocery store merely license the fruit it sells me? No, it can't

Because it's a physical product that you buy and use and it's gone. Once you eat the fruit you can't give it back to them. If that same store had a delivery service that you could pay extra for, do you really think you could pay the fee and then expect more than one delivery?

Software is a physical product. Windows 95, 98, 98se, ME, and 2000 have all perished, just like that suculent fruit at the store. I pay for the delivery of each different version of OS.

The cdrom is physical, the bits aren't.

 

[Jeff7]

Some places allow that. Spinrite for example - its homepage says, "Our software is licensed for download and use by individual end users on one or more of their personally owned machines."
So there, if you've got a few PCs at home, go ahead and use it. Some people here don't like Steve Gibson, but at least he doesn't seem utterly profit-hungry. A large company with great power over the entire industry could easily say "This licenses you to scan up to 1TB, after which it expires, and we want more money then."

It's the old thing that those with the most money want even more of it. That's why some states have laws making it illegal for towns to provide free wireless Internet access to their residents. The telecomm companies don't make as much money that way, so they lobbied/bribed to have this sort of thing outlawed, and some states' lawmakers just followed the dollar signs.
Similarly, why should Windows be done on a household basis? Microsoft is so strapped for cash that they need you to pay full retail for both of those computers you own.

But really, a household license would be nice - IF it were reasonably priced. You say $80 for a single license, and $110 for a household. If something like that were implemented, it would probably be more like $80 for a single license, $155 for a two-PC household, $230 for a three-PC household, etc.

Look at MP3s. When they first came out, the music industry hated them. They were traded online like crazy, mainly b/c cd's were overpriced, especially the singles. Consumers wanted an alternative that the industry didn't want/think of. When it came about, consumers flocked to it. Now that a few pay services exists that have just about as much choice and variety as the illegal sites, the pay services are booming. Consumers now have a choice, and their voices were finally heard. These legal MP3 services continue to get more and more users. Finally the consumer has won.

I always think of VCRs when this comes up. The movie industry fought VCRs like the things were being produced by a company co-owned by Hitler and Satan. They were to be the death of movies. Now the movie industry billions of dollars a year thanks to that which they fought against.

I guess I just like to see it when companies bring in enough money to ensure that everyone makes a good wage. I don't like seeing when companies bring in huge amounts of money, where large portions are paid to a very few people at the head of the company, while the workers, the people who actually generate the cash flow, may not make enough money to really live on.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Can my grocery store merely license the fruit it sells me? No, it can't

Because it's a physical product that you buy and use and it's gone. Once you eat the fruit you can't give it back to them. If that same store had a delivery service that you could pay extra for, do you really think you could pay the fee and then expect more than one delivery?

Sure they can license it. The store just won't get much business. Now if it is the only grocery store chain that you can shop at, then it can license the fruit it sells, and you can't really do anything about it.
The license may dictate things about HOW you may eat the fruit, or even IF you may eat the fruit. Maybe their fruit would only be licensed to be used as compost. The edible-fruit license is more expensive. Maybe it would be licensed to be eaten only if it is sliced into halves. If you want to slice it into quarters, you have to pay for the 4-piece license.
It could be possible to license fruit.


I love reading things like the GNU license - that thing specifically says that you are not allowed to charge for it. "...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users." Things where they have to spell out that this stuff is for anyone to use or improve.

 

[Nothinman]

Software is a physical product. Windows 95, 98, 98se, ME, and 2000 have all perished, just like that suculent fruit at the store. I pay for the delivery of each different version of OS.

The CD that the data is printed on means nothing, you can lose that disc and they'll send you another one for free+s&h. What you really paid for is the license.

I love reading things like the GNU license - that thing specifically says that you are not allowed to charge for it. "...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users." Things where they have to spell out that this stuff is for anyone to use or improve.

I guess you missed the part where it says " When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." and "For example, if you distribute opies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."

You can charge as much as you want for GPL'd software, but you're required to also provide the source code (upon request) and all of the same rights to the software that you received.