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 352282
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: The right question
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Mar 2009 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The right question"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

You never purchase software. Ever.

Really. I can surely remember a time when there was no license nonsense.

There is nothing tangible (except for a license and sometimes a distribution medium) that you can own.


Electrons are tangible.
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.
There's NO difference to print media other than the way the information is stored. Everything is else is just bullshit from a greedy industry that think it's more special than it is.

The burden of proof is on you.


No it isn't. The burden of proof is on the company attempting to impose unsound limitations after purchase.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: The right question
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 9th Mar 2009 14:48 in reply to "RE[6]: The right question"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

Really. I can surely remember a time when there was no license nonsense.

Pray tell, when exactly was that time?

Electrons are tangible.
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.

No it isn't. The burden of proof is on the company attempting to impose unsound limitations after purchase.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1