Eula's..... Many ?s

[bersl2]

OK, apparently several people in here need to learn the difference between the accepted notion of copyright and the one they think it ought to be.

 

[velis]

OK, dano, how's this:
You buy a CD containing MS Windows. You see it as a product and therefore don't want to pay multiple times to use it on multiple computers.
Suppose for a second that that CD drive is THE ONLY drive you have in your entire range of computers. Each comp only has a CD and no hard disk. The Windows CD is used to boot the system, which then resides in memory only occasionally requiring the CD to load something off of it.
This way you only have a chance to use one CD in one computer at a time. Would you still consider the Windows license a rip-off?
The way things are is that MS allows you to copy the system from CD to your hard drive for a variety of reasons, which i will not list here. Why is that any different than running the system from CD directly only removing CD to load MS Word, for example?
I also have another example for you: electricity. You have the power line coming into your appartment. So you decide to turn on a 100W light bulb. You see that electricity is flowing. Now, according to _your_ household licence you can turn on an unlimited number of other up-to-100W devices because you're already paying those 100W of electricity. Of course, should you decide to plug in a computer, you would need to upgrade your electricity connection to some 300-500W, but that would again be it.
Is it not only natural that you pay the bill for all devices that use electricity? After all, 10 light bulbs use 10 times the juice. With 10 copies of Windows you can run 10 copies of UD Agent (a freeware) thereby thinking you are more useful (it's current projects are of medical nature) or have 10 people type away some documents (insert additional tasks to your desire here).

Jure

 

[bookem dano]

For the electiricity analogy to work, MS would be charging us per cycle on the CPU, or uptime.
Even the analogy on the one cdrom shared is flawed b/c that is against the MS EULA.
bits on a CDROM are physical....its a pit. what those pits represent is a function first done by hardware and then software. calling a bit non physical is like calling a drop of ink nonphysical. Both are part of something that needs some sort of interpretation.
XP supports multiple users, or multiple lightbulbs.

No one has tried to discuss without some analogy why the EULA for 1 installed PC is and should be legal. Software to me is a product. Like all products, it has a lifespan and a set price. Unlike most products, software's lifespan can be directly controlled by parent company via lack of support of the product. Also unlike most consumer products, the creating company has taken it upon themselves to make sure all of their product users use the product only as they intended it to be used. What basic principal says that this is and should be legal?

I'll sell you my purebread horse, but you better not try to bread him.

 

[Nothinman]

Software is a product. But you don't buy the software, you buy a license to use the software.

I'll sell you my purebread horse, but you better not try to bread him.

For a fee I'll let you use my purebread horse anytime you want to ride, but you're forbidden to bread him.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: bookem dano
For the electiricity analogy to work, MS would be charging us per cycle on the CPU, or uptime.
Even the analogy on the one cdrom shared is flawed b/c that is against the MS EULA.
bits on a CDROM are physical....its a pit. what those pits represent is a function first done by hardware and then software. calling a bit non physical is like calling a drop of ink nonphysical. Both are part of something that needs some sort of interpretation.
XP supports multiple users, or multiple lightbulbs.

No one has tried to discuss without some analogy why the EULA for 1 installed PC is and should be legal. Software to me is a product. Like all products, it has a lifespan and a set price. Unlike most products, software's lifespan can be directly controlled by parent company via lack of support of the product. Also unlike most consumer products, the creating company has taken it upon themselves to make sure all of their product users use the product only as they intended it to be used. What basic principal says that this is and should be legal?

I'll sell you my purebread horse, but you better not try to bread him.

OK, but what's the difference between a bit represented as a voltage level and a bit represented as a tiny groove made by a laser in a CD, or a bit represented as the polarity of a tiny magnetic region? They are all physically different, but they all represent the same thing. Bits are transient; they are created, transformed, and destroyed all the time. The material form doesn't matter; it's the idea that counts in the eyes of copyright law.

And goddamnit, the past form of the verb "breed" is "bred". Though I will admit that is a somewhat amusing image.

 

[bookem dano]

You know, usually software is buggy b/c of faulty requirements. This thread shows that it's not always the requirements, but the interpretation of them. Since no one would like to attempt to understand and explain the requirements of the question being posed, I'm done.

I apparaently have given the anandtech community WAY too much credit.

Thanks for not paying attention.

 

[velis]

I'm sorry, Dano, that you feel this way. Since you're done totally disillusioned over anandtech communiti, I'll go at this one more time:
I believe your original question has been answered multiple times here. To be exact, you asked not one question, but quite a few:
1) Why is it legal for an ISV to limit a household to one install of SW?
2) Why is SW not consumable product
3) Why is there no 'household' license
4) How can a company prohibit me from using their SW in a particular way

First of all, this is quite a complicated issue as you could have seen from the replies taking various approaches to the subject.

I may have missed one or maybe two, but this is basically it. Since you asked a multiple-layered question, you can't expect each reply to contain answers to all your questions. You have been lucky to have your questions answered in multiple posts by multiple people, but you refused to read them and see how other people feel about those questions.

Let me summarise it by question to you again:
1) You asked the wrong question. It doesn't. You can always buy 2 licences
To interpret the question the way you meant it (Why can't i install one purchased copy to many computers): Because ISV only gives you the right to install it on one. They have every right to do that. They wrote the SW after all and can do anything they want with it, can't they? If you don't like their license, don't use the SW.

2) Because the installation CD doesn't disintegrate after installation. So doesn't the disk after n arbitrary types of use of the SW. There are millions of reasons why it is not and only a few that suggest SW could be consumable.

3) Because ISV feels it would make it more trouble than good. Otherwise every ISV would have one.

4) Well, this one is really tricky. You were talking about viewing pornography in one particular viewer. This particular constraint may have come from ISV trying to protect themselves against being mentioned in some huge porn scandal with paedophiles or something like that. But on general I believe that's one thing they can't do. I could be using the SW for all kinds of legal or illegal activity, that's mine to determine, not the ISV's. But still, see (1) for explanation why they can do it, as long as it doesn't violate some law about your freedom to use your property (license in this case) in any way you seem fit.

 

[Nothinman]

Thanks for not paying attention.

You're the one not paying attention to what you're paying for when you buy software.

 

[bookem dano]

Originally posted by: velis
I'm sorry, Dano, that you feel this way. Since you're done totally disillusioned over anandtech communiti, I'll go at this one more time:
I believe your original question has been answered multiple times here. To be exact, you asked not one question, but quite a few:
1) Why is it legal for an ISV to limit a household to one install of SW?
2) Why is SW not consumable product
3) Why is there no 'household' license
4) How can a company prohibit me from using their SW in a particular way

First of all, this is quite a complicated issue as you could have seen from the replies taking various approaches to the subject.

I may have missed one or maybe two, but this is basically it. Since you asked a multiple-layered question, you can't expect each reply to contain answers to all your questions. You have been lucky to have your questions answered in multiple posts by multiple people, but you refused to read them and see how other people feel about those questions.

Let me summarise it by question to you again:
1) You asked the wrong question. It doesn't. You can always buy 2 licences
To interpret the question the way you meant it (Why can't i install one purchased copy to many computers): Because ISV only gives you the right to install it on one. They have every right to do that. They wrote the SW after all and can do anything they want with it, can't they? If you don't like their license, don't use the SW.

2) Because the installation CD doesn't disintegrate after installation. So doesn't the disk after n arbitrary types of use of the SW. There are millions of reasons why it is not and only a few that suggest SW could be consumable.

3) Because ISV feels it would make it more trouble than good. Otherwise every ISV would have one.

4) Well, this one is really tricky. You were talking about viewing pornography in one particular viewer. This particular constraint may have come from ISV trying to protect themselves against being mentioned in some huge porn scandal with paedophiles or something like that. But on general I believe that's one thing they can't do. I could be using the SW for all kinds of legal or illegal activity, that's mine to determine, not the ISV's. But still, see (1) for explanation why they can do it, as long as it doesn't violate some law about your freedom to use your property (license in this case) in any way you seem fit.

thanks for the recap, but even your recap shows people don't listen.

I have read peoples comments, and usually reply with how their comments didn't address the real question or was backed up by a faulty analogy.

I'll attempt at an answer...
1)
I ask how is it legal for an ISV to limit a household to 1 install.
The only reply I get is, because they can. This really doesn't tell me how/why it is illegal. People SAY it is b/c SW is not a consumable product, yet I have argued that it is consumable and as such it should be bound by the normal principles of a consumable product. Basically I fail to understand how the compiled code is this somewhat special/magical thing that the company has the authority to attempt to control with an iron fist.

2) SW is consumable. Windows 95, Dos, Windows 3.1, Windows 98, and soon to be Windows 2000 have all ben consumed by not being supported. Just b/c the transfer medium may have a longer shelf life than the vitual product, doesn't mean the purchased item as a whole is not consumable.(Note, I'm arguing the consumability of an OS which is different than the consumability of another product)

3) I would assume there is no license for household so that they can squeeze out more money from the consumer, but that doesn't make it right.

4)This is tricky. You even agree that they cannot prohibit the use of the product, but then fall back on the argument, of they can b/c they've been doing it for years/because they can. And that is the very thing I'm questioning.

Bottom line...
MS owns the source code. As a private consumer of their compiled product there should be no company enforceable restriction on how I can use that product. I cannot however take that product and sell it as my own.

This is why I believe they started the idea of SW licensing, to protect the work of others. I'm all for that. Like I've said before, I'm actually a software developer and nothing makes me angrier than someone that steals your work for their own gain. If I use that other persons work and incorporate it into my own products that is wrong unless I have their permission. That permission usually would be in form of a licensing agreement. That's why I believe that businesses fall into the license area b/c the business' overall product has incorporated the SW. So perhaps my real question is, why does a license exist for home/private use?

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: bookem dano

Originally posted by: velis
I'm sorry, Dano, that you feel this way. Since you're done totally disillusioned over anandtech communiti, I'll go at this one more time:
I believe your original question has been answered multiple times here. To be exact, you asked not one question, but quite a few:
1) Why is it legal for an ISV to limit a household to one install of SW?
2) Why is SW not consumable product
3) Why is there no 'household' license
4) How can a company prohibit me from using their SW in a particular way

First of all, this is quite a complicated issue as you could have seen from the replies taking various approaches to the subject.

I may have missed one or maybe two, but this is basically it. Since you asked a multiple-layered question, you can't expect each reply to contain answers to all your questions. You have been lucky to have your questions answered in multiple posts by multiple people, but you refused to read them and see how other people feel about those questions.

Let me summarise it by question to you again:
1) You asked the wrong question. It doesn't. You can always buy 2 licences
To interpret the question the way you meant it (Why can't i install one purchased copy to many computers): Because ISV only gives you the right to install it on one. They have every right to do that. They wrote the SW after all and can do anything they want with it, can't they? If you don't like their license, don't use the SW.

2) Because the installation CD doesn't disintegrate after installation. So doesn't the disk after n arbitrary types of use of the SW. There are millions of reasons why it is not and only a few that suggest SW could be consumable.

3) Because ISV feels it would make it more trouble than good. Otherwise every ISV would have one.

4) Well, this one is really tricky. You were talking about viewing pornography in one particular viewer. This particular constraint may have come from ISV trying to protect themselves against being mentioned in some huge porn scandal with paedophiles or something like that. But on general I believe that's one thing they can't do. I could be using the SW for all kinds of legal or illegal activity, that's mine to determine, not the ISV's. But still, see (1) for explanation why they can do it, as long as it doesn't violate some law about your freedom to use your property (license in this case) in any way you seem fit.

thanks for the recap, but even your recap shows people don't listen.

I have read peoples comments, and usually reply with how their comments didn't address the real question or was backed up by a faulty analogy.

I'll attempt at an answer...
1)
I ask how is it legal for an ISV to limit a household to 1 install.
The only reply I get is, because they can. This really doesn't tell me how/why it is illegal. People SAY it is b/c SW is not a consumable product, yet I have argued that it is consumable and as such it should be bound by the normal principles of a consumable product. Basically I fail to understand how the compiled code is this somewhat special/magical thing that the company has the authority to attempt to control with an iron fist.

2) SW is consumable. Windows 95, Dos, Windows 3.1, Windows 98, and soon to be Windows 2000 have all ben consumed by not being supported. Just b/c the transfer medium may have a longer shelf life than the vitual product, doesn't mean the purchased item as a whole is not consumable.(Note, I'm arguing the consumability of an OS which is different than the consumability of another product)

3) I would assume there is no license for household so that they can squeeze out more money from the consumer, but that doesn't make it right.

4)This is tricky. You even agree that they cannot prohibit the use of the product, but then fall back on the argument, of they can b/c they've been doing it for years/because they can. And that is the very thing I'm questioning.

Bottom line...
MS owns the source code. As a private consumer of their compiled product there should be no company enforceable restriction on how I can use that product. I cannot however take that product and sell it as my own.

This is why I believe they started the idea of SW licensing, to protect the work of others. I'm all for that. Like I've said before, I'm actually a software developer and nothing makes me angrier than someone that steals your work for their own gain. If I use that other persons work and incorporate it into my own products that is wrong unless I have their permission. That permission usually would be in form of a licensing agreement. That's why I believe that businesses fall into the license area b/c the business' overall product has incorporated the SW. So perhaps my real question is, why does a license exist for home/private use?

What gives them such power to forbid you to do many things with their software? Why, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, via Article 4 of this clarification of the treaty.

It should be noted that the United States did not become a full party to the treaty until 1989. It is why a copyright notice is no longer required in order to receive protection on the work (something I think it did right); it is also why copyright now, in the US, lasts life of the author + 90 years ( :thumbsdown: ) (something it did horribly wrong with respect to the ease of information flow today). It is also what spawned the dreaded DMCA, which implements this treaty withing US law, and a few "extras" .

 

[bookem dano]

Bersl2 - I tried getting to that clarification link, but it kept timing out. The other link was a lot of stuff, and I didn't see anything that much that is too clear. Is there a specific part that I should read?

A person that breaks into my home can legally sue me for injuries he sustains while in/on my premesis. I've seen verdicts against an establishment for negligence when the patron first causes the issue and then gets injured because of the issue that they caused. That is legal, but that is not right. I am trying to get to the logical/ethical discussion of how perhaps this law/treaty you mention is actually right.

Disney won a huge deal when they basically bought the copywright extension. Hosers.