the copyright system gives the customer the right to use the copyrighted purchase any way they wish.
people, lots of people, have bought blizzard games. they have a right to use them. copyright does not grant blizzard the right to bar the purchasers from using it. the EULA cannot invalidate their rights under copyright.
they can use it on any server they wish.
ironic that copyright gives them more rights than the fake-coerced EULAs do, and companies insist it's a contract till their blue in the face.
software is a product. when you buy it, you have a right to use it. period. there are NO restrictions in the copyright system for usage. and EULAs which aren't even contracts, cannot recind your rights under copyright.
you are being completely dishonest and disengenuous.
where on earth did i say or encourage or condone not paying for the right to use the software?
when you BUY OR PURCHASE the software, that buys you the right to use it.
or are you arguing that when someone pays for a product, they don't have the right to make use of it?
i said nothing at all about copyright infringement or distributing the software. ever.
you're calling people who use osx on non-apple hardware criminals? thieves? tell me, what do you call people that have not signed any contract or had no contact whatsoever with apple. this btw, applies to any software from any company.
that you keep talking about copyright infringement when i have never even remotely hinted about it, suggests to me that you have ulterior motives or perhaps you don't understand what we're discussing.
just to summarize, i want customers to be able to use software that they have PURCHASED. nothing more and nothing less. the company already received their money, hence the transaction has been completed. the customer now may use the software in whatever way they see fit. i mean after all, isn't that the definition of purchase? if you cannot do what you want, then by definition, it doesn't belong to you. but copyright counterdicts your argument. copyright gives the customer the right to use the copyrighted item in ANY WAY they see fit. the only thing it restricts, is distribution. and as you now know, i don't condone or encourage infringement.
people bought copies of blizzard software and apple software and microsoft software. they have the right granted to them by the copyright system to make use of their purchases.
they only don't care because they haven't been educated about it.
imagine telling (sorry about using a derogatory example) joe-sixpack that the game he just bought from walmart, he cannot use in a way that the company doesn't approve of.
tell him that the massive amount of money he spent, doesn't give him the right to use his purchased product in a way he desires.
the copyright cartels and their cohorts in the mainstream media have been only reporting one side (take a guess which side) for decades.
copyright law is so damn obscure to the average person (again take a guess why so few people know about it but virtually all of them come into contact with it every day of their lives) that all these important issues go unnoticed or are shot down. i mean after all, the TV tells me that those damn no good hippies want to use a product in a way that no good christian god-fearing american would ever do.
tell me it isn't so.
the only reason that the copyright cartels have so much power is because as they say, knowledge is power and the average person is so uninformed (intentionally) about it to be beyond pathetic and sad.
education/knowledge is the BEST weapon in any war.
p.s. it wouldn't even be a war if the cartels respected the original intent of copyright.
every other person that has ever commented on it, has read and interpreted it correctly.
to promote science and the arts, they give copyright monopoly to the author. but why do that? and how does that promote science and the arts? and why for a limited time? if it's property, then it belongs to the author and his children forever.
clearly it is not property but a limited in duration and scope monopoly. and the purpose of that limited monopoly is to promote progress. and here's where it gets tricky if you use your mentality. all ideas and knowledge are public domain the first time it goes outside the head of the author. but in order to encourage authors who might be reluctant to distribute their "works" (which they happily compiled from the previous millions of humans and their "works"), they give them a financial incentive. after they get fat on the profits of their labor, then the copyright (monopoly) ends and it goes into the public domain.
and here's another tricky and oft-understood part.
the author, gasp!, compiles more ideas/knowledge and goes to work on more "content". hence the PROGRESS of arts and science.
you would know that if you quoted the full passage instead of one that enhances your particular bias.
for a limited time, the author gets to benefit EXCLUSIVELY then it goes back to where all ideas and knowledge belongs.
i'd say that's a good fu**ing deal.
now that copyright lasts longer than the time it takes for the universe to die, it no longer resembles the CONTRACT originally signed between the public interest and authors. i may not be a lawyer, but it seems the authors broke their side of the contract. benefitting for centuries over one piece of work exclusively does not remotely benefit the public nor does it promote the progress of science and the arts.
originally copyright lasted 14 years. back then, a person's life expectancy was around 40 years. information moved very slowly back in the days before digital computers were the norm. in this age of information, when one piece of data moves across the earth in seconds, copyright needs to last about 5 years. that gives the author an enormous amount of time to profit exclusively from their work and allows the public to benefit from their side of the contract.
when only one side benefits, the system is null and void. any first year law student will recognize that.
to prevent purchased copies of osx to be installed on any hardware that the owner desires.
talking about property rights.
talking about commerce in which the merchant/vendor wants to tell you how and where and when you may use your purchased product.
software is a product, it is not magic. if you want to use software in an unapproved manner, the most you can expect is to lose support and maybe your warranty too. but to prevent it in a "EULA" is dirty and shameful to say the least.
if their business model requires them to prevent lawful uses of said product, then it's time the BBB or the atorney general get on their case.
no merchant/vendor has the right to tell their customers how to use a product after it's purchased. by definition, it doesn't belong to them anymore. software is not magic, the same laws of commerce apply to it as any other industry.
same reasoning goes to the MPAA... telling you you can't play your purchased DVDs on unapproved players. when you buy it, you can watch it on an abacus, a psp, a toaster or a cray supercomputer. you bought the right to use it. you may not be able to get support on "unapproved" players but the people who do this already understand that.
actually no. seeing that you have no clue what the GPL is, i'll give you some info.
the GPL is wholly unlike a EULA because it first of all, only adds to your rights and doesn't restrict them.
it also has no SAY whatsoever over how you USE the software. it only says that if you make changes and then distribute that code, that you have to provide the source. it doesn't say in any way how and why and where and when you can USE the software.
just as an extra, you voluntarily choose the GPL license, it is NOT forced upon you.
you got the GPL'd software for free also. you got the entire source. you didn't pay for it (most of the time).
so you're saying that if a person walks into a store, picks up an osx box on the shelf, pays for it... you're telling me that person has no right to use that software that he legally purchased? tell me what business is it of the vendor where that person runs the software? the person, running it on an unapproved configuration won't ask apple for support nor does he expect patches or updates. nor will he call for technical help. this is understood that unapproved hardware will not get support and perhaps will void his warranty.
it's called honest commerce and the software industry hasn't even a single clue as to what that means.
since you cannot argue on the merits, you claim the EULA is a contract.
software isn't magic and you don't need a license to use it, regardless of how much the software industry claims otherwise.
as you said, a contract is about giving something in consideration for something else. what are they giving you for your 130 bucks? the right to use the software? isn't that what the 130 bucks buys you? so then what's the "contract" for?
go buy hamburger and then accept the EULA. i mean after all, did you think that paying the 2 bucks for the burger gave you the right to put ketchup on it or eat it in a manner unapproved by the vendor?
software is a product no matter how much they "claim" otherwise. you pay for it, it's yours to USE. no one here is talking about distributing it or owning the copyright on it.
but your argument is weak. it relies on people believing that the merchant has a say in how you use their product after you purchase it.
even if EULAs are legally sound (which they're not), do you condone and encourage their use? do you support vendors/merchants having a say in how you use a product after purchase?
should sony tell you how to use your tv? should ford tell you how and when and where you may use your car? should apple tell you how and where you may use your purchased copy of osx?
software is not magic and follows all the other laws of commerce. EULAs are invalid. contracts on the other hand are not. but since i have never heard any end-user (not developer) sign a contract to receive osx, i can say apple doesn't have a legal (let alone moral) right to tell anyone what they may do with their purchased copy.
it's a digital computer that's locked up to prevent the purchaser from using his/her property lawfully.
the use of the word console seems to make people think it's not a computer. nothing could be further from the truth. in the old days, people couldn't afford to burn roms onto cards to program them, so it was somewhat glossed over. but not that modern systems have ethernet and moreso optical based interfaces, there's no excuse.
consoles: preventing lawful use of property since 1978.
boycotts work. you may just be misinterpreting the goal of a boycott.
it's primarily designed to educate the uninformed (sometimes intentionally uniformed) public about a situation that they can do something about.
people think highly of companies (yeah go along with me). but when it's revealed that they may be up to no good, then the awareness is raised a great deal in general about said companies. they either respond to the perceived threat of public awareness (hehe) or their profit drops.
commerce has been handled like this for thousands of years (well minus the boycott part). when you purchase a product, the manufacturer/vendor/merchant not only does not tell you what and how you may use it, but doesn't have the inherent right to even do so.
a contract can change that but of course, you and i and all clear-thinking people know that a EULA is in no way a contract. the EULA is a way for the slimy software industry to force "contracts" into the legal system and the minds of the public without precedent and without the moral right to do so.
now i have to question why decent people would argue it is good for customers to be told how to use a product AFTER it has been purchased. by that definition it no longer belongs to the company/vendor/manufacturer.
when the people who refuse to relent to the truth come to that point, they argue that the EULA is legally binding. even if one were to assume that for the sake of argument, this is what it boils down to... that they condone and encourage that kind of behavior. they believe the customer has no right to do with software what they wish (bar distribution which is covered under copyright).
that even IF the EULA was binding, they don't find that disgusting or reprehensible.
how anyone could argue that is beyond me.
software is NOT magic. it is a product like any other. and preventing lawful use of software is the work of people who care not a whit for honest commerce and are anti-customer rights. that is what i must conclude as no other conclusion fits the pattern and evidence.
seems after they get their money, they still own it.
commerce aint what it used to be.
back in the day, you could buy stuff and the person who sold it to you couldn't tell you how , when, where who and why to use it.
yeah but software is magical, hence it has different rules when it comes to commerce.
keep believing it. it's good for you when microsoft, adobe, apple, macromedia, sony, nintendo, sega etc tell you how and when and why you may use the products you lawfully purchased.
the cases discussed here are different but they intersect a great deal. there are many congruent streams flowing through both of them. i just wonder why people keep missing it.
property rights, it's not just for the EFF anymore.
of apple forbidding people buying osx and using it on anything other than what hardware they choose.
even though no one expects support for unofficial configurations, they go out of their way, and soon with osx86, using the DMCA to prevent bought copies of it being used.
funny though, you don't hear a lot of calls for boycotts.
arguing for property rights on/. is a losing proposition but if some people don't, others will think it's ok if companies do things like this and even believe it's for their own good.
stand up for all the rights of customers, not just when it's your pet company or if it doesn't involve you at this moment. i guarantee it WILL involve you sooner or later.
i had a lot more hope for the geek community to prevent abuses... but i've been disappointed.
we're no longer the x or y generation, we're the DRM and DMCA gen (P.A.T.R.I.O.T comes to mind). hope you guys like the world we're building.
where's the part where the customer can sign to show that they will legally abide by the terms of the "contract"?
hmmm?
where's the underlined area where the signature goes?
guy selling fruit by the road: by buying my oranges you agree to let me sell your childrens organs. (text of which appears in 1pt font under a shady tree near the ground).
tell me if that's what you think of when you think of contracts.
the ironic thing is that i left battle.net due to in part, people using words like assclown and fuckwit.
the point is a great one though.
using the product in a lawful (law as in one that hasn't been corrupted by "lobbyists" and "bribed representatives", though you'll find not the latter kind these days) way is the RIGHT of the customer.
manufacturer: i'll sell this hammer to you if you agree that by holding it in your hands, that you will only use ACME brand expensi^H^H VALUE ADDED NAILS.
customer: sure thing (under breath: get real bitch).
any merchant that tries to control a product after it is sold needs to **** off and die. there is no middle ground here. unless the customer signs a contract (nope, eula is not a contract and never will be) [and in contracts you cannot agree to give up fundamental rights] you have no damn business telling a customer what they can do with what they purchased. you are allowed not to give support or discontinue your warranty if the product is used in an unapproved manner.
that's because as you know, they don't want the word to get out that the law is supposed to protect their "intellectual property" and not draconian measures to prevent lawful uses of products.
imagine if they can remotely revoke your car from being able to start, or even from preventing you opening the doors.
give it 15 years or so.
when DRM and Insidious Computing grab a firm foothold in the computer industry, nobody will bat an eyelash to oppose such crap. it'll be in the name of protecting you from the bad guys or terrorists, also national security.
yeah you know it. don't let them turn up the temperature slowly... when they aren't looking, turn it up full blast.
black boxes that record your auto activities without user knowledge. gps tracking systems integreted into new models...
Slashdot Mirror
it has nothing to do with open source or not.
the copyright system gives the customer the right to use the copyrighted purchase any way they wish.
people, lots of people, have bought blizzard games. they have a right to use them. copyright does not grant blizzard the right to bar the purchasers from using it. the EULA cannot invalidate their rights under copyright.
they can use it on any server they wish.
ironic that copyright gives them more rights than the fake-coerced EULAs do, and companies insist it's a contract till their blue in the face.
software is a product. when you buy it, you have a right to use it. period. there are NO restrictions in the copyright system for usage. and EULAs which aren't even contracts, cannot recind your rights under copyright.
you are being completely dishonest and disengenuous.
where on earth did i say or encourage or condone not paying for the right to use the software?
when you BUY OR PURCHASE the software, that buys you the right to use it.
or are you arguing that when someone pays for a product, they don't have the right to make use of it?
i said nothing at all about copyright infringement or distributing the software. ever.
you're calling people who use osx on non-apple hardware criminals? thieves? tell me, what do you call people that have not signed any contract or had no contact whatsoever with apple. this btw, applies to any software from any company.
that you keep talking about copyright infringement when i have never even remotely hinted about it, suggests to me that you have ulterior motives or perhaps you don't understand what we're discussing.
just to summarize, i want customers to be able to use software that they have PURCHASED. nothing more and nothing less. the company already received their money, hence the transaction has been completed. the customer now may use the software in whatever way they see fit. i mean after all, isn't that the definition of purchase? if you cannot do what you want, then by definition, it doesn't belong to you. but copyright counterdicts your argument. copyright gives the customer the right to use the copyrighted item in ANY WAY they see fit. the only thing it restricts, is distribution. and as you now know, i don't condone or encourage infringement.
people bought copies of blizzard software and apple software and microsoft software. they have the right granted to them by the copyright system to make use of their purchases.
copyright gives them the right.
and that doesn't give Rosa Parks the right to break the law in order to sit in the front.
guess what?
without her breaking the law we'd still be in a world of hurt.
learn your history or be damned.
the law is not synonymous with righteousness.
if it doesn't benefit the public, by definition, it is an unjust law.
want to manufacture a wrench to turn those proprietary Ford nuts? tough shit. you have no right to break the law.
they only don't care because they haven't been educated about it.
imagine telling (sorry about using a derogatory example) joe-sixpack that the game he just bought from walmart, he cannot use in a way that the company doesn't approve of.
tell him that the massive amount of money he spent, doesn't give him the right to use his purchased product in a way he desires.
the copyright cartels and their cohorts in the mainstream media have been only reporting one side (take a guess which side) for decades.
copyright law is so damn obscure to the average person (again take a guess why so few people know about it but virtually all of them come into contact with it every day of their lives) that all these important issues go unnoticed or are shot down. i mean after all, the TV tells me that those damn no good hippies want to use a product in a way that no good christian god-fearing american would ever do.
tell me it isn't so.
the only reason that the copyright cartels have so much power is because as they say, knowledge is power and the average person is so uninformed (intentionally) about it to be beyond pathetic and sad.
education/knowledge is the BEST weapon in any war.
p.s. it wouldn't even be a war if the cartels respected the original intent of copyright.
you misuse the word troll.
often times, when a person says troll, they really ought to say shill. or another word commonly used is astroturfer.
they work for the interests of the copyright cartels.
or in some cases they are mentally deficient and cannot for the life of them make useful judgements.
i propose to ease their suffering by making good decisions on their behalf.
no, you have it backward.
every other person that has ever commented on it, has read and interpreted it correctly.
to promote science and the arts, they give copyright monopoly to the author. but why do that? and how does that promote science and the arts? and why for a limited time? if it's property, then it belongs to the author and his children forever.
clearly it is not property but a limited in duration and scope monopoly. and the purpose of that limited monopoly is to promote progress. and here's where it gets tricky if you use your mentality. all ideas and knowledge are public domain the first time it goes outside the head of the author. but in order to encourage authors who might be reluctant to distribute their "works" (which they happily compiled from the previous millions of humans and their "works"), they give them a financial incentive. after they get fat on the profits of their labor, then the copyright (monopoly) ends and it goes into the public domain.
and here's another tricky and oft-understood part.
the author, gasp!, compiles more ideas/knowledge and goes to work on more "content". hence the PROGRESS of arts and science.
you would know that if you quoted the full passage instead of one that enhances your particular bias.
for a limited time, the author gets to benefit EXCLUSIVELY then it goes back to where all ideas and knowledge belongs.
i'd say that's a good fu**ing deal.
now that copyright lasts longer than the time it takes for the universe to die, it no longer resembles the CONTRACT originally signed between the public interest and authors. i may not be a lawyer, but it seems the authors broke their side of the contract. benefitting for centuries over one piece of work exclusively does not remotely benefit the public nor does it promote the progress of science and the arts.
originally copyright lasted 14 years. back then, a person's life expectancy was around 40 years. information moved very slowly back in the days before digital computers were the norm. in this age of information, when one piece of data moves across the earth in seconds, copyright needs to last about 5 years. that gives the author an enormous amount of time to profit exclusively from their work and allows the public to benefit from their side of the contract.
when only one side benefits, the system is null and void. any first year law student will recognize that.
to prevent purchased copies of osx to be installed on any hardware that the owner desires.
talking about property rights.
talking about commerce in which the merchant/vendor wants to tell you how and where and when you may use your purchased product.
software is a product, it is not magic. if you want to use software in an unapproved manner, the most you can expect is to lose support and maybe your warranty too. but to prevent it in a "EULA" is dirty and shameful to say the least.
if their business model requires them to prevent lawful uses of said product, then it's time the BBB or the atorney general get on their case.
no merchant/vendor has the right to tell their customers how to use a product after it's purchased. by definition, it doesn't belong to them anymore. software is not magic, the same laws of commerce apply to it as any other industry.
same reasoning goes to the MPAA... telling you you can't play your purchased DVDs on unapproved players. when you buy it, you can watch it on an abacus, a psp, a toaster or a cray supercomputer. you bought the right to use it. you may not be able to get support on "unapproved" players but the people who do this already understand that.
actually no. seeing that you have no clue what the GPL is, i'll give you some info.
the GPL is wholly unlike a EULA because it first of all, only adds to your rights and doesn't restrict them.
it also has no SAY whatsoever over how you USE the software. it only says that if you make changes and then distribute that code, that you have to provide the source. it doesn't say in any way how and why and where and when you can USE the software.
just as an extra, you voluntarily choose the GPL license, it is NOT forced upon you.
you got the GPL'd software for free also. you got the entire source. you didn't pay for it (most of the time).
so you're saying that if a person walks into a store, picks up an osx box on the shelf, pays for it... you're telling me that person has no right to use that software that he legally purchased? tell me what business is it of the vendor where that person runs the software? the person, running it on an unapproved configuration won't ask apple for support nor does he expect patches or updates. nor will he call for technical help. this is understood that unapproved hardware will not get support and perhaps will void his warranty.
it's called honest commerce and the software industry hasn't even a single clue as to what that means.
since you cannot argue on the merits, you claim the EULA is a contract.
software isn't magic and you don't need a license to use it, regardless of how much the software industry claims otherwise.
as you said, a contract is about giving something in consideration for something else. what are they giving you for your 130 bucks? the right to use the software? isn't that what the 130 bucks buys you? so then what's the "contract" for?
go buy hamburger and then accept the EULA. i mean after all, did you think that paying the 2 bucks for the burger gave you the right to put ketchup on it or eat it in a manner unapproved by the vendor?
software is a product no matter how much they "claim" otherwise. you pay for it, it's yours to USE. no one here is talking about distributing it or owning the copyright on it.
but your argument is weak. it relies on people believing that the merchant has a say in how you use their product after you purchase it.
even if EULAs are legally sound (which they're not), do you condone and encourage their use? do you support vendors/merchants having a say in how you use a product after purchase?
should sony tell you how to use your tv? should ford tell you how and when and where you may use your car? should apple tell you how and where you may use your purchased copy of osx?
software is not magic and follows all the other laws of commerce. EULAs are invalid. contracts on the other hand are not. but since i have never heard any end-user (not developer) sign a contract to receive osx, i can say apple doesn't have a legal (let alone moral) right to tell anyone what they may do with their purchased copy.
it's a digital computer that's locked up to prevent the purchaser from using his/her property lawfully.
the use of the word console seems to make people think it's not a computer. nothing could be further from the truth. in the old days, people couldn't afford to burn roms onto cards to program them, so it was somewhat glossed over. but not that modern systems have ethernet and moreso optical based interfaces, there's no excuse.
consoles: preventing lawful use of property since 1978.
the ps3 won't be getting elder scrolls oblivion.
if the 3 consoles manufacturers weren't such aholes, i'd consider getting a 360 just for oblivion. it's not the money but the principle.
because they didn't stand up to the RIAA.
boycotts work. you may just be misinterpreting the goal of a boycott.
it's primarily designed to educate the uninformed (sometimes intentionally uniformed) public about a situation that they can do something about.
people think highly of companies (yeah go along with me). but when it's revealed that they may be up to no good, then the awareness is raised a great deal in general about said companies. they either respond to the perceived threat of public awareness (hehe) or their profit drops.
commerce has been handled like this for thousands of years (well minus the boycott part). when you purchase a product, the manufacturer/vendor/merchant not only does not tell you what and how you may use it, but doesn't have the inherent right to even do so.
a contract can change that but of course, you and i and all clear-thinking people know that a EULA is in no way a contract. the EULA is a way for the slimy software industry to force "contracts" into the legal system and the minds of the public without precedent and without the moral right to do so.
now i have to question why decent people would argue it is good for customers to be told how to use a product AFTER it has been purchased. by that definition it no longer belongs to the company/vendor/manufacturer.
when the people who refuse to relent to the truth come to that point, they argue that the EULA is legally binding. even if one were to assume that for the sake of argument, this is what it boils down to... that they condone and encourage that kind of behavior. they believe the customer has no right to do with software what they wish (bar distribution which is covered under copyright).
that even IF the EULA was binding, they don't find that disgusting or reprehensible.
how anyone could argue that is beyond me.
software is NOT magic. it is a product like any other. and preventing lawful use of software is the work of people who care not a whit for honest commerce and are anti-customer rights. that is what i must conclude as no other conclusion fits the pattern and evidence.
their operating system?
seems after they get their money, they still own it.
commerce aint what it used to be.
back in the day, you could buy stuff and the person who sold it to you couldn't tell you how , when, where who and why to use it.
yeah but software is magical, hence it has different rules when it comes to commerce.
keep believing it. it's good for you when microsoft, adobe, apple, macromedia, sony, nintendo, sega etc tell you how and when and why you may use the products you lawfully purchased.
the cases discussed here are different but they intersect a great deal. there are many congruent streams flowing through both of them. i just wonder why people keep missing it.
property rights, it's not just for the EFF anymore.
of apple forbidding people buying osx and using it on anything other than what hardware they choose.
/. is a losing proposition but if some people don't, others will think it's ok if companies do things like this and even believe it's for their own good.
even though no one expects support for unofficial configurations, they go out of their way, and soon with osx86, using the DMCA to prevent bought copies of it being used.
funny though, you don't hear a lot of calls for boycotts.
arguing for property rights on
stand up for all the rights of customers, not just when it's your pet company or if it doesn't involve you at this moment. i guarantee it WILL involve you sooner or later.
i had a lot more hope for the geek community to prevent abuses... but i've been disappointed.
we're no longer the x or y generation, we're the DRM and DMCA gen (P.A.T.R.I.O.T comes to mind). hope you guys like the world we're building.
where's the part where the customer can sign to show that they will legally abide by the terms of the "contract"?
hmmm?
where's the underlined area where the signature goes?
guy selling fruit by the road: by buying my oranges you agree to let me sell your childrens organs. (text of which appears in 1pt font under a shady tree near the ground).
tell me if that's what you think of when you think of contracts.
the ironic thing is that i left battle.net due to in part, people using words like assclown and fuckwit.
the point is a great one though.
using the product in a lawful (law as in one that hasn't been corrupted by "lobbyists" and "bribed representatives", though you'll find not the latter kind these days) way is the RIGHT of the customer.
manufacturer: i'll sell this hammer to you if you agree that by holding it in your hands, that you will only use ACME brand expensi^H^H VALUE ADDED NAILS.
customer: sure thing (under breath: get real bitch).
any merchant that tries to control a product after it is sold needs to **** off and die. there is no middle ground here. unless the customer signs a contract (nope, eula is not a contract and never will be) [and in contracts you cannot agree to give up fundamental rights] you have no damn business telling a customer what they can do with what they purchased. you are allowed not to give support or discontinue your warranty if the product is used in an unapproved manner.
that's because as you know, they don't want the word to get out that the law is supposed to protect their "intellectual property" and not draconian measures to prevent lawful uses of products.
"they go out of their way to block it"
sort of like apple.
never mind that you bought the software.
why people don't use knoppix or a livecd gnu/linux distribution to safely* browse the web. the cache and history will never touch your hard drive.
*safely meaning that the data won't persist on your hard drive, not that it won't also be logged by your isp etc.
shouldn't that be adamantium?
or maybe they want to upgrade them later and charge a fee.
well on our way to have "Trusted" cars.
imagine if they can remotely revoke your car from being able to start, or even from preventing you opening the doors.
give it 15 years or so.
when DRM and Insidious Computing grab a firm foothold in the computer industry, nobody will bat an eyelash to oppose such crap. it'll be in the name of protecting you from the bad guys or terrorists, also national security.
yeah you know it. don't let them turn up the temperature slowly... when they aren't looking, turn it up full blast.
black boxes that record your auto activities without user knowledge. gps tracking systems integreted into new models...
yeah it's a good time to be a "consumer" now.
neither do apple users own osx.
that they are expressly forbidden to install on any hardware they don't approve of (and have been doing it for years) just seemed to slip your mind.
i'll overlook it this time.
manufacturer: i'll sell you this hammer but only if you use it according to my wishes.
sheep: sure thing, benevolent corporation.
how ironic that you can install xp on a mac but cannot install osx on a pc...
and how does that help you if ms were to introduce "protection" preventing you from lawfully using your purchased copy of windows?
people are sheep... but what excuse do geeks/nerds have?
that's why they learned from their "mistakes".
DIVX boiled the frog too quickly and made it too obvious that it would primarily benefit the corporations.
now they found out the right temperature and to make sure it looks like it benefits you, the public.
artificial restrictions against the owner of the product is pure evil. maybe i'll use that as my sig, even though i abhor them.