! Standby alert !
“There are four lights!”
Step up to red alert. Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb!
Looking forward to summer in Somerset later in the year :)
>It's entirely semantics. The only reason for "licensing" to exist in these cases is because contract law is the only legal framework we have at the moment that can cover it. There is no difference in any real sense between a perpetual license and owning something.
There is a real difference if the law says that there is, and the law can be changed if enough pressure is brought to bear by the rich and powerful.
>The suggestion there is some meaningful distinction is classic tabloid scaremongering, designed to elicit some gut reaction that you're being treated unfairly even when there's no actual substance to it.
That's what people said about the DMCA, about the (then) rumours that disc based games would start being sold with on disc data that could only be accessed if you paid a further fee to the games company (this was implemented to both get money from the original buyer of the disc, and also anyone else who might have bought the disc second hand), about the rumours that games you buy would be reliant on on-line server checks before you could run them, etc, and all of these things come to pass.
Yes, in most cases these rumour or proposed actions/law changes are exaggerated (or even made up altogether) to get more views for the web sites that report this 'news', but some of them do pass into law or make their way into real life. And if we ignore these threats to our rights, then they are more likely to come true.
I can see where altering a firmware on a vehicle could impact it's roadworthiness (read; safety) much in the same way as selling cut and shut cars do, so I can see a valid reason for restricting access to it, but in the aforementioned examples of the wires/gas pipes I believe common wisdom, and the fact that it is 'what you do with what you own' that causes something to be 'illegal', have both worked out pretty well historically and are generally accepted, rather than the presumption that somehow you don't own what you paid for and you just paid for a license to use it, no-one would claim that you buy a license to use electrical wire.
It's entirely semantics. The only reason for "licensing" to exist in these cases is because contract law is the only legal framework we have at the moment that can cover it. There is no difference in any real sense between a perpetual license and owning something. The suggestion there is some meaningful distinction is classic tabloid scaremongering, designed to elicit some gut reaction that you're being treated unfairly even when there's no actual substance to it.
So, is there no merit to the point put forth that licensing vs. ownership, apart from being in a perpetual sense synonymous, grants the licenser more power to revoke the said license and/or restrict its terms of use to that of defined (or licensed) use rather than illegal use?An example of a definition being someone who owns some loose electrical cord and then uses it as a skipping rope as opposed to someone else in a similar situation who then uses it to strangle someone. Both of which are not the intended purposes of electrical cord, but neither instance in the case of ownership being a matter for the manufacturer and only one being a matter for law enforcement.
Look, people own physical books but understand that that doesn't give them a right to photocopy all the pages and sell them. If that's not a concept you understand then your argument is going to be nonsensical. It's no big leap to see that the copyrighted material in a vehicle's processor has restrictions on it despite you owning the physical car.
Saying "you won't own the car" is just stupid headline stuff. If it makes you question the concept of ownership then you'll realise that you don't "own" anything covered by copyright unless you are the author. If you ask normal people whether they own any books though they'll say yes.
>It's entirely semantics. The only reason for "licensing" to exist in these cases is because contract law is the only legal framework we have at the moment that can cover it. There is no difference in any real sense between a perpetual license and owning something.
There is a real difference if the law says that there is, and the law can be changed if enough pressure is brought to bear by the rich and powerful.
The law can, and often does, override the terms and conditions of a contract. So the fact that usage is being limited by contract law rather than specific laws governing the usage of something has no bearing over the ability to change that.
That's what people said about the DMCA, about the (then) rumours that disc based games would start being sold with on disc data that could only be accessed if you paid a further fee to the games company (this was implemented to both get money from the original buyer of the disc, and also anyone else who might have bought the disc second hand), about the rumours that games you buy would be reliant on on-line server checks before you could run them, etc, and all of these things come to pass.
They were already happening before the DMCA, it didn't and doesn't make a jot of difference to how companies have started "double dipping" to charge multiple times for a product. If it went away tomorrow, nothing there would change at all.
So, is there no merit to the point put forth that licensing vs. ownership, apart from being in a perpetual sense synonymous, grants the licenser more power to revoke the said license and/or restrict its terms of use to that of defined (or licensed) use rather than illegal use?An example of a definition being someone who owns some loose electrical cord and then uses it as a skipping rope as opposed to someone else in a similar situation who then uses it to strangle someone. Both of which are not the intended purposes of electrical cord, but neither instance in the case of ownership being a matter for the manufacturer and only one being a matter for law enforcement.
It's entirely the wrong discussion to have, because the problem isn't about "ownership" vs "licensing" and those pushing that agenda are doing so to divert away from the real legal issues that underpin this. It's like trying to save the lives of people who fall off a cliff by putting an ambulance at the bottom, rather than stopping them falling off in the first place.
Yes, in most cases these rumour or proposed actions/law changes are exaggerated (or even made up altogether) to get more views for the web sites that report this 'news', but some of them do pass into law or make their way into real life. And if we ignore these threats to our rights, then they are more likely to come true.
Comments
The money would flood in =))
Mark
Repair Guides. Spanish Hardware site.
WoS - can't download? Info here...
former Meulie Spectrum Archive but no longer available :-(
Spectranet: the TNFS directory thread
! Standby alert !
“There are four lights!”
Step up to red alert. Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb!
Looking forward to summer in Somerset later in the year :)
car is the radio cassette deck and I have no desire to refla
sh that."
You plan on driving the same car till you're 80?
Saying "you won't own the car" is just stupid headline stuff. If it makes you question the concept of ownership then you'll realise that you don't "own" anything covered by copyright unless you are the author. If you ask normal people whether they own any books though they'll say yes.
The law can, and often does, override the terms and conditions of a contract. So the fact that usage is being limited by contract law rather than specific laws governing the usage of something has no bearing over the ability to change that.
They were already happening before the DMCA, it didn't and doesn't make a jot of difference to how companies have started "double dipping" to charge multiple times for a product. If it went away tomorrow, nothing there would change at all.
It's entirely the wrong discussion to have, because the problem isn't about "ownership" vs "licensing" and those pushing that agenda are doing so to divert away from the real legal issues that underpin this. It's like trying to save the lives of people who fall off a cliff by putting an ambulance at the bottom, rather than stopping them falling off in the first place.
I would second your statement there, ewgf...