Strange take on ownership vs usage license

[Timsup2nothin]

What makes software special that it gets to redefine the nature of ownership?

It isn't and it doesn't. It falls into the same category (intellectual property) and under the same copyright laws as music, written material, etc.

 

[Commodore]

I just checked three EULAs I have lying around and not one of them includes right to revoke without cause. They all have right to revoke if the agreement is violated by the user. So a core element of your argument doesn't appear to be valid. Purchasing an end user license is in fact just as permanent as buying a car.

Now, the Steam user agreement is reportedly a whole different kettle of fish, but since I avoid Steam like the plague I can't say.

I didn't say they could revoke it without cause now did I? I said they can revoke it without notice. In legal terms there is a big difference between those two statements.

What makes software special that it gets to redefine the nature of ownership?

They aren't redefining the nature of ownership since they never sold you ownership rights in the first place. Also licensing agreements have been around long before computers and software became widely available for public consumption. To stick with the car analogy you brought up, think of the EULA as leasing a car rather than buying it. When you lease a car you do not own the car, the dealership does and you pay them to let you use it. It is essentially the same thing when you purchase software; you are paying the owner to allow you to use it, not to own it. Just because you and the vast majority of other consumers misunderstood the nature of your purchase does not put the company you purchased from in the wrong.

 

[Senethro]

And my question is why do people allow it to be this way? What makes software so different from everything else we buy that its manufacturers are able to get away with saying you don't own it even though you bought it? Again, compare it to other products. If companies that manufacture cars or televisions or any other physical product you buy tried to pull this, people would never tolerate it, and no amount of "buying the product means an implied agreement to the TOS that's inside the box" would save these companies from being sued into the ground. What makes software special that it gets to redefine the nature of ownership?

IDK, why does software have to be like anything? Is it like a hammer that gets worn, an apple that gets consumed, an expertise you can hire or a performance you can watch?

It felt similar to a tool when it came on physical media. Not so much these days.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I didn't say they could revoke it without cause now did I? I said they can revoke it without notice. In legal terms there is a big difference between those two statements.

No, but you did say "at any point", and that isn't true either. The conditions for revoking the license are clearly laid out, and the only 'point' at which the license can be revoked is if those conditions are met.

Bottom line, purchasing a typical end user license to software is actually very much like buying a physical object. Your claim that the provider of the software is legally entitled to repossess the licensed software, in whole or in part, at will is incorrect.

Again, the Steam user agreement reportedly allows for the current situation involving GTAVC, but the Steam user agreement is not typical of EULAs.


EDIT: An automobile lease is fixed term so not really comparable to an EULA, since 'end user' is permanent unless otherwise specified.

 

[Commodore]

EDIT: An automobile lease is fixed term so not really comparable to an EULA, since 'end user' is permanent unless otherwise specified.

I understand that, but I was trying to illustrate the fact that just because you spend money on something doesn't mean you become the owner of it.

The general point of my response to Wolfbeckett's post was also that this situation is most definitely not unique to software. There are many things in life that we spend money on but are not conferred ownership rights. Leasing a car is just one such example. Your cable/satellite TV service, your internet service, and renting a house or apartment are a few other examples. The fact that one only purchases a license to use software and not ownership of it is just the latest example, but it seems to be the only one people are getting up in arms about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I understand that, but I was trying to illustrate the fact that just because you spend money on something doesn't mean you become the owner of it.

The general point of my response to Wolfbeckett's post was also that this situation is most definitely not unique to software. There are many things in life that we spend money on but are not conferred ownership rights. Leasing a car is just one such example. Your cable/satellite TV service, your internet service, and renting a house or apartment are a few other examples. The fact that one only purchases a license to use software and not ownership of it is just the latest example, but it seems to be the only one people are getting up in arms about.

Comparing it to rent, be it an auto lease or an apartment or whatever, or to a service like cable which is a pay as you go service, is more confusing than helpful.

If you buy a book that doesn't make you the writer, the story isn't yours, you just bought the right to read it. You don't get to publish it in a new cover and go on a book tour. Software is also intellectual property. When you buy a game you get the right to play it, but like the story in the book it still belongs to the person who created it. That is not really hard to grasp.

 

[Akka]

But they aren't a physical object.

I can also see your Ford example actually happening as more software gets into everything. Ford contracts out the software that optimally manages the engine for efficiency and a licensing bust up ensues years later. A big fuss will happen, 10 different countries will pass 12 different contradictory laws and everyone will ask why we weren't ready for this.

Well, if "it's not physical" is reason enough to justify stealing back the product you sold, then I guess it can be used exactly in the same way to justify piracy (actually even more so, as piracy doesn't deprive the owner of his own copy, unlike this absurd system).

I've explained this many times before. When you buy a car, you are actually purchasing ownership rights to that particular car. When you buy software, you are not purchasing ownership rights, you are purchasing a usage license. Whether right or wrong, you do not legally own a single piece of software currently in your possession and the owner of that software reserves the right to revoke your usage license at any point without prior notice. And no, they are not obligated to refund your money either as per the terms of the EULA.

This argument is ridiculous. In neither case you're allowed to replicate the product (if you copy each part of a Ferrari and assemble them in a Ferrari, you're still not allowed to sell it as a Ferrari, 'cause Ferrari own the "pattern" of the car), but in both case you bought the right to use your "copy" and the ownership of this said copy.

It's not because an EULA claims something to be true and make you sign it that it's legal (EULA in software industry are simply filled with leonine clauses that haven't yet been challenged because people don't know better or simply can more easily find loophole/escape plans - piracy, for the most obvious example).
And even if it were legal, it's not because it's legal it's morally acceptable.

 

[Senethro]

Well, if "it's not physical" is reason enough to justify stealing back the product you sold, then I guess it can be used exactly in the same way to justify piracy (actually even more so, as piracy doesn't deprive the owner of his own copy, unlike this absurd system).

Nah mang, not my point. My point is two fold: Why should a thing be treated like a thing its unlike just because you want it to be, and why blame everyone except those making/lobbying heavily for the law?