Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Thread beginning with comment 352247
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Unfortunately...
by dvhh on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:44 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

Unfortunately for normal people there is now difference between the physical support ( disk, CD, DVD ) they can buy and do whatever they want with it,
And the software which is merely licenced to their use(which they must agree before they can use it). The same thing goes for a Music CD or a DVD (you can still do what you want with the CD and DVD but not with the content of it, my god this is confusing).
There is no communication about this, because people don't want to be stripped of their sense of ownership,
imagine how people would react if they were told at the cash register that they do not own what they just bought for and only the medium.
Music/Film/Software company are in the same basket concerning this issue, So I guess Apple is not so guilty, just doing it the same thing as others (weird for a "think different" company).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Unfortunately...
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Mar 2009 09:12 in reply to "Unfortunately..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

they do not own what they just bought for and only the medium.


In many (most?) countries it would not be legal if the customer was not told about it prior to purchase.

So I guess Apple is not so guilty


The fact that others do it does not make them less guilty.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Unfortunately...
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 16:39 in reply to "RE: Unfortunately..."
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"they do not own what they just bought for and only the medium.


In many (most?) countries it would not be legal if the customer was not told about it prior to purchase.
"

Go look at the box for OS X. It specifically says that there is an EULA associated with the software on it. If you choose not to read the outside of the box that is your problem.

Additionally, all of Apple's EULAs are available for reading on their website. So not only are you told about the EULA before you purchase OS X, you have the ability to read the EULA before making the purchase.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Unfortunately...
by alcibiades on Mon 9th Mar 2009 09:47 in reply to "Unfortunately..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The quoted parts of the judgment in the article make it perfectly clear that you have bought a copy of the software, at least in the US. You have not just bought optical media. Nor have you just bought a license. The judgment is quite explicit, you really have bought a copy of the software.

This is why Softman was able, despite the EULA, to break up what they had bought and sell the components.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Unfortunately...
by lemur2 on Mon 9th Mar 2009 12:04 in reply to "Unfortunately..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Unfortunately for normal people there is now difference between the physical support ( disk, CD, DVD ) they can buy and do whatever they want with it,
And the software which is merely licenced to their use(which they must agree before they can use it). The same thing goes for a Music CD or a DVD (you can still do what you want with the CD and DVD but not with the content of it, my god this is confusing).
There is no communication about this, because people don't want to be stripped of their sense of ownership,
imagine how people would react if they were told at the cash register that they do not own what they just bought for and only the medium.
Music/Film/Software company are in the same basket concerning this issue, So I guess Apple is not so guilty, just doing it the same thing as others (weird for a "think different" company).


Most people understand what they get, and what they don't get when they buy a book.

They are allowed to read it, as many times as they want, wherever they want, and lend it to friends. They can quote bits of it in discussion papers and essays. What they cannot do is copy it whole over and over and sell the copies for their own profit.

Why should a CD, a DVD or a Software Application on CD be considered any different to this?

What rights do or should software vendors have that book publishers do not have?

Edited 2009-03-09 12:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 10

cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

If I buy a book, then except for the rights restricted by the Copyright Act, I own it. I am free to re-sell it. I am free to cut out objectionable passages before I hand it to my children. I am free to use it as raw materials for making paper doilies if I want.

And on June 1, 1908 in Bobbs-Merrill v. Straus, the US Supreme Court has ruled I have these rights (look up "first sale doctrine" in a case, over a century ago).

Electronic publishers want to deny me these rights. The only private property they believe in is their own. They should be condemned as un-American adherents of Old-World mercantilism.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Unfortunately...
by WorknMan on Tue 10th Mar 2009 00:01 in reply to "RE: Unfortunately..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Most people understand what they get, and what they don't get when they buy a book.

They are allowed to read it, as many times as they want, wherever they want, and lend it to friends. They can quote bits of it in discussion papers and essays. What they cannot do is copy it whole over and over and sell the copies for their own profit.

Why should a CD, a DVD or a Software Application on CD be considered any different to this?

What rights do or should software vendors have that book publishers do not have?


Unlike a piece of software, when you lend a book to friends (or whoever else), you don't have the original anymore until you get it back. With software, you can 'loan' it to a friend, and a million other people in the process, and still keep the original.

I'm not here to say what rights people should or shouldn't have with digial media, because it's a pretty complicated issue. I'm just describing the difference between physical objects and digital media. And, in my opinion, it's a pretty significant difference.

I don't know what's going to happen whenever we're able to duplicate physical objects just like we copy a file. That's going to be a whole new can of worms.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Unfortunately...
by aliquis on Mon 9th Mar 2009 15:12 in reply to "Unfortunately..."
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Imaginary property and licensed rights is ok as long as they accept imaginary money from me with the right to withdraw them whenever I want ...

Reply Parent Score: 3