Quote:
Originally Posted by RW2112
Agreed. In today's world of digital information the concept of "owning" a piece of intellectual property of another simply by buying it is no longer valid. Ownership remains with the creator of the I.P., the buyer simply purchases a license to "use" the I.P. in question.
|
What a crock. It's the same BS software makers have been trying to implant into people's heads since the seventies - that you don't "own" your copy of the book/software/computer file, you have it on lease.
It's quite simple really: either you own something, in which case your right to use it, store it, lend it and resell it is inalienable, or you don't and the loan you have is revokable by the rightful owner.
I think it's pretty clear that, once you bought an ebook, or a piece of software, it's inacceptable that a third party can deprive you of what you bought unilaterally. If you don't accept this, then you obviously demand to own the ebook/software.
I think you'll find most people who buy an ebook/software consider they own their copy. They don't think they shelled out their hard-owned cash to rent the data. Software vendors are so keenly aware of people's deep dislike of that preposterous business model that they never really pushed the issue in court. They know that if they did, people would be up in arms. Instead, they keep pretending people accept the idea, and in return, people tolerate and disregard the outrageous conditions founds in EULAs as long as they're not enforced.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a licensed ebook or piece of software: I paid for my copy, I own it, and I deny the seller the right to decide what I can do with it from the point of my purchase on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
Books about people taking drugs encourages people to take drugs, so they should be removed too  |
Man, did I raid my local chemist after reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or what...
HST sure can make drugs look sexy.