Software Do we actually own it

[supernova1965]

Not according to this court we pay for it but we are only licenced to use the software but we don't own it. What a croc of you know what:screwy:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1vb34VktwzhrTctR6HaBP2he1AAD 9I5C4H00

[pgc hunter]

If I pay for it, I own it.

[ballaratdragons]

Anyone breaking this law please take yourself to the nearest Police Station and hand yourself in :D

What a croc!

[avandonk]

Bill Gates paid about fifty grand for DOS written by some smart uni professor. Bill Gates decided he now owned this software but his market plan was to license it to IBM and any user. You all know the rest. Countless versions of software that was marginal at best and pathetic at worst.

Their marketing plan is to repeatedly sell you a junk OS that will finally work in the next version. Then if you read the EULA thingy you are only allowed to give MS lots of money for the privilege of a load of junk that you can use only if they let you.

Bert

[stephenb]

Yep, Tim Paterson (http://www.patersontech.com/) is his name, and his original company Seattle Computer Products.

[rcheshire]

Couldn't agree more. No experience with Apple and haven't used MS for 8 years privately. Don't miss it and thankfully Pixinsight build for many of the major desktops. Ask the open source community about their battles.

[AstralTraveller]

Why do you think this contribution is written using Opera running on Ubuntu?

[astro744]

Well all I can say is you can thank pirates for the the tight laws and eventual rulings. Isn't it a little puzzling too why $6000 software is up for sale at garage sales? My guess is that the original user was on subscription which gives you at least one new version a year. In reallity unless the new version is something special, many users choose not to install and hold all their unopened version packs. However, the user has paid for a license to use the product whether by subscription or not. Installing the product on separate machines that are run concurrently is a not allowed within an organisation as a license is needed for each, not a new set of disks but a license. These unopened packs should not be sold and the sellers should also be prosecuted.

I wouldn't buy any software used since I don't know its history nor trust it's source which is sad really since many people are genuine and were the original owners and just don't need the software anymore. And then there are the pirates which have ruined it all!

What does peeve me is when you as a genuine user want to upgrade your ageing PC but keep the software like Acrobat, Office that still works fine and yet you cannot because the software has been activated on one PC and cannot be installed on another PC even if you no longer use the old one and have retired it, (not sold it). Adobe is particularly strict in this regard but you can thank pirates for that too!

[CraigS]

Slightly off topic, although similar in point, is the entertainment industry.

It's always bugged me that I have to pay another $20 or $30 each time I have to re-buy movies, just because the originators have copied the original and merely changed the delivery technology. Eg: I've had to re-buy my favourite movies at least two times now, just because I originally purchased them in VHS, then had to move to DVD and now to Blue-Ray. (Lets face it, we really had no choice in the move from VHS to DVD, did we ?).

Doesn't the original content (IP), for which my original purchase contained a payment for, (licence-to-view, privately), go on in perpetuity, regardless of changes made by the originator in the delivery technology ?

So why should I have to pay the same (or more) again and again ?

Seems the law works against the purchaser, yet again - no great surprise in the context of this thread, I guess.

Cheers

[Alchemy]

Using an apple product, they have stitched up the software to only work on this one machine ( iPad) but as I or anyone else cannot pirate it .... To my knowledge. The software is reasonably priced.... 20 dollars for voyager, good value, even if when I upgrade to another iPad it's still good value.
I wouldn't get too upset about not "owning " the software, I have never had anyone knock on the door and say I want it back.

[entity62]

The court ruling is only specific to software, where the end user agreement, states the software can not be resold. A large proportion of proprietary software allows for resale.

[kustard]

Software licensing is a minefield. Do you own it? Can you resell it? Can you buy an upgrade and use the old version on another computer whilst running the upgrade on your main computer?

A big problem is that the license agreements are so long and full of legalese that hardly anyone reads them, they just accept and install without fully understanding what they may be agreeing to.

If I write some code, I like to think I own the source code, after all it's my IP. If I then say sell the compiled code, who ever buys the physical or digital copy owns that copy and they are free to do with it as they wish. This is how I think all software should be, but as seen this is not the case and from what I have seen in the electronics industry that I have worked in for most my life, a lot of this kind of licensing comes from highly specialised industry programs (like CAD and CAM applications) where you pay a large sum of money for the software and receive a lot of extra services such as 24hr support etc etc.

Sorry for the wall of text.

[Jen]

:lol::lol:

[multiweb]

I tend to agree with the concept if you cannot reverse engineer the code or duplicate it. I think licensing has its place for products that can't be packaged. I do websites for a living and apart from a few standard server side things all the code is pretty much laid out on the table, so you can copy and paste and duplicate to your heart content. I have had problems in the past. That's not right when you sell a one of then it gets copied over and over and re-dristibuted without your consent. That's a slap in the face IMHO.

[Lee]

I think if you want a lifetime viewing experience when you buy a movie, including automatic upgrades when formats change... then your DVD from JB is going to set you back a (fair) bit more than $20... Then everyone would whinge at DVDs being so expensive!

[CraigS]

The point is though, I've already paid for a 'right to view' licence. I've compensated the owners of the content for their IP. Also note that this payment constitutes a large percentage of the total cost of a DVD/movie, so if I buy the same movie on a different medium, there should be some form of discount for the second purchase.

The cost of the delivery technology is a secondary issue.

And the point of commonality with the intent of this thread, is that the content houses scream whenever they perceive 'theft' of their content. And yet, whenever it suits them ... they can 'double dip' and the law supports them in this, in spite of the absence of a relevant clause in the licence 'agreement' !

So, you are not even actually licenced to view (use) the content if it exists on a different medium ! .. So what are we really buying when we pay a licence fee ???

I don't know ... Do you ???

Cheers & Rgds.

[Lee]

I've never thought of buying a DVD as a "right to view", I guess I think of it as a DVD, I own the piece of plastic, not any rights to the content. By the time a DVD is pressed, case manufactured, sleeve printed and all put together and shipped around, then staff paid at various distributors/retailers (and the film-makers get a few bucks), I actually think the price of the average DVD isn't bad value, and I don't expect a discount on future purchase.

[rcheshire]

Identically so! But thinking of a step on the wild side with FreeBSD 64bit.