Slashdot Mirror
Software Transferability? (or the lack of it)
"I seem to recall hearing stories of courts overturning these schemes; does anybody have any specifics? Cases/judicial opinions, perhaps? I've checked FindLaw, Google, and others, but haven't found anything (haven't found anything upholding them, either...). Have these clauses ever even been to court, or do the companies just depend on FUD to bludgeon the end user into compliance? Anybody with experience, I'd love to hear it. Lawyers, your opinions? (Lawyers, would you be willing to fight one out in court, if given the chance?)"
As many of you may know, the concept of "owning" software is fallacy. You own nothing. What you do posess when you purchase your new piece of commercial software, is a corporate-skewed set of limited-use rights, which are getting more and more limited each day. For those interested, the latest print issue of Wired (October, 2001) has a big "article" on this (see p.170). It attempts to illustrate thru humorous example, what software has been seriously doing for decades.
No one would own (or lease) a car if the contract said, "You must not sell this car, in the event this car is no longer used, send it to the nearest junkyard.", so why is this true for software?
Jesus, there's nothing I hate more than people who tell you to read their comments who haven't read yours. Where exactly did I say I thought it was okay to build a replica of a car? And why on Earth do you think that's even what we're talking about?
Let's review your original comment :
Even if you assemble a second car identical to the first, you still ended up paying for all the parts again, plus whatever labor went into it. It's nothing like duplicating software--with something tangible, duplication has the cost of materials tied into it. There are no legal problems because you HAVE paid for both 'copies' of the car. Duplicating software has no practical cost to it... which means the manufacturer of the individual bits gets nothing when you copy them.
(emphasis added by me).
Does that answer your question? I am simply pointing out why they are not as different as you assume.
The fact is, buying a CD to duplicate software is not a necessity--buying the parts to assemble a copy of a car is.
Maybe not a CD, but you must provide storage of some kind and storage costs you something. The fact that the cost is infintessimally small does not change the principle. That your whole argument about how IP is somehow different that regular property is based on the fact that IP is easier to copy belies its logic. I suppose you think it is more illegal to replicate a Porsche than it is to replicate a bicycle. In all of these cases, the act is the same. Their relative cost or difficulty is immaterial.
And a 'medium' such as sound waves or electrical impulses is not the same as computer 'media'. I apologize if you didn't understand the distinction being made.
Your distinction is based on complete ignorance of the definition of medium, and its relationship to the word media. Simply put, a medium is a conveyance or storage device. More than one meduim, is media. Computer media, be it CDs, a hard disks or RAM, is a conveyance or storage device for information that a computer can use.
Perhaps the logical faculties of a Masturbating Vulcan are impaired, so I'll explain it to you:
1. You criticized someone for misrepresenting the DMCA.
2. You misrepresented the DMCA yourself.
3. I simply pointed out this inconsistency
You're correct in noting that this has nothing to do with the original poster's topic, so there's hope for your logical faculties yet. However, that doesn't negate your error. You are still guilty of doing what you were criticizing someone else for doing, in the very same message.
You have a nice day now.