Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right to do whatever we want with it...

So, if you rent a car, does that mean its OK to drive it around the corner and sell it to someone else? you paid to get hold of the car, so it's yours, yes?

Oh, wait, no it isn't. You paid to rent it for a finite period under certain conditions, and signed a contract to that effect. the same is usually the case where software is concerned, but since you don't like the terms of the software contract too much, you feel free to ignore it, and redefine your licensing of the software as a purchase, granting yourself all kinds of new rights which the original creator never intended to give to end users. Now, you're welcome to say that software is way overpriced or those terms are so onerous you refuse to comply with them, a point of view I have some sympathy with. But at least be honest about the fact that you're choosing to ignore the contractual terms offered by the licensor and agreed to by the licensee.

edit: I don't mind being downvoted, but at least point out why you think the argument is flawed. Otherwise you're just blaming the weatherman for telling you that its raining.

Maybe because you are comparing intellectual property to a physical object?

Ah, but I'm not. I'm distinguishing between a purchase and a limited license.

I used the analogy of the car because we're familiar with it - we all understand you can buy a car, and also that you can rent one on a temporary basis. The kind of transactions you can perform on an object are not a function of the object itself.

So with software (or a movie or book etc. etc.) I could sell you all the rights: not just to use/watch/read it as a consumer, but to exploit it for commercial gain as a publisher. This is like the purchase of a car; you can do whatever you want with the property you now own. Or I could just grant you a limited license, reserving other rights for myself, as with the rental situation. This is what happens now when you 'buy' a piece of software or media - you're really buying the rights to a single copy of it. You can still do whatever you want with that single copy, but as soon as you start making your own copies - even if you're giving them away for free, or simply making them available via bittorrent - then you've gone into the publishing business. Now I don't necessarily approve of this approach, but that's how things are. You're getting into a contract with a publisher when you buy their wares, just as surely as if you had rented a car. That it's trivially easy to circumvent the terms of that contract doesn't alter the fact that you're a party to it.

Look at it this way: suppose you owned a printing company, and you happen to have all the technology you need to make books of any kind. And let's say you can also easily get them into bookstores. You get a hardback copy of Harry Potter's Secret Diary, a supplement to the popular series of books that is sure to sell millions. Since you have a book-style printing press on hand, you spend a busy week making plates and then rush out a paperback edition, on which you make a handsome profit. You've used your own paper, ink etc., so the original publisher is no worse off and hasn't lost a single copy of their stock.

Is this cool?

Did Harry Potter's Secret Diary contain a EULA?

I get into a contract with a publisher when I buy their wares?

I have never had to sign a contract when purchasing a book AND I have never not signed (always requred to sign) a contract when renting a vehicle.

Again, physical objects and intellectual property are not the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com