Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 352285
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-05-12
Pray tell, when exactly was that time?
I'm really tired of this bogus argument. What do you own in a book? Is ink tangible? Is anything tangible? After all, it's all just atoms.
If you are purchasing the electrons or atoms of the medium on which the software come, then running the software would be illegal, because it would mean you are making a copy without the consent of the copyright holder, wouldn't it?
In books you own the medium - the book itself, and an implied license to "playback" or "use" the content (e.g. the novel). The reason there are no explicit licenses for books is that, because you don't need special device to "decode" and "use" the content - just your eyes, and therefore what constitutes use and what constitutes copying is very much clear. Not so with software, as I already mentioned.
Oh for f--k's sake, not the proof that will decide the Apple vs Psystar case. Give one concrete example of a consumer law that requires a licensor to explicitly get your agreement to the terms of the license prior to the purchase.