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 352327
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Uhm...
by Delgarde on Mon 9th Mar 2009 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Uhm..."
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

I think the fundamental issue here is whether there is an implicit 'right to use' attached to software products.


How would there not be? Can you think of *anything* where purchasing a product doesn't give you the right to use it? If I buy a sandwich, I have the right to eat it. If I buy a book, I have the right to read it. If I buy a CD, I have the right to listen to it.

If I buy a piece of software - I don't automatically have the right to run it? That implies a specific exemption somewhere in the law for software...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Uhm...
by IkeKrull on Tue 10th Mar 2009 18:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Uhm..."
IkeKrull Member since:
2006-01-24

CDs and software require making 'ephemeral copies' in device buffers, RAM etc. in order to support most 'use' models.

Rightsholder groups maintain that this copying requires a license. Preventing such use is considered to be unenforceable, but it is actually one of the key supports for this interpretation of the law - i.e. 'You need a license to use software and digital media products.'

This is how they differ from a sandwich or a car engine, and why EULAs and restrictive terms of use can be attached to software and digital media when there seems to be no such phenomenon in the 'physical' world.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing - in fact its pretty egregiously overreaching and stupid - but this is the situation that is being codified into laws around the world.

Reply Parent Score: 1