Continued from a Previous Thread
Discuss! And remember rules
FYI in terms of microsoft - you dont OWN the software - all you purchased is a license to USE it in the manner determined in the T&C set out by said company when they sold you said license
I refuse to consider that revocation of property rights valid: First Sale Doctrine.
Now, yes, the gov't seems to consider it ok for this "licensing" nonsense to go on -- another issue where the citizenry needs to speak up and restore our rights.
Its not a revocation of a right if that right was never extended to you in the first place. I get what you are saying, in that the way things currently are sucks, but as it stands under law at the moment thats just the way it is.
And this is why I won't give Microsoft any of my money. Quiet protest of the fact that I wouldn't own their products if I bought them.
.... I do run Windows. Kinda unavoidable in my position, sadly. At least I can get it from other sources (legit) though.
1 Like
Anyway, more pertinently, yes, I did have that right in the first place. Windows is a product that I pay the manufacturer money for. Hence I should own it -- the fact I don't is Microsoft removing my preexisting right to complete ownership over things I buy.
But thats where so many people just get it wrong. Microsoft NEVER sold you their software, they sold you the right to use it. You do not and have NEVER owned anything from Microsoft.
It doesn't matter. Software is a PRODUCT.
Yes - a product that you do not own - you paid for the right to use it, not own it.
Wrong -- A product is a product is a product. Unless I am specifically paying for short-term or defined-term usage -- these are renting and leasing respectively, then I am BUYING. Perverting it with licensing goes against First Sale Doctrine, which is a core principle of the essential free market.
An OS is an essential part of your system, like RAM. Imagine if Crucial or Kingston or whoever tried to LICENSE your RAM. Same problem.
No offence but you dont seem to get it - You are still looking at Windows as a product for you to purchase.
IT ISNT
You pay for a licence allowing you to USE that product. You do NOT own it.
Sure I think that it sucks ass that this is the way software is sold, but its also done for a reason. Protection of intellectual property rights and corporate greed
I'm with him here. Windows isn't the product. The license to use it is. that is what they are really selling.
1 Like
@Vandal85 @DerKrieger I'm afraid you're not listening. They haven't a right to sell Windows as a license in the first place. It's anti-consumer, anti-free market, and stinks of monopoly license to do as they please.
I am listening - and it doesnt matter how much you dont like it or disagree - legally they can do this. It's as simple as that.
Legally, currently, yes, because the majority of people are not willing to speak out about this abuse of the market.
It's your attitude precisely that legitimizes it in the eyes of the law, when it's writ large across the citizenry.
If you read my replies i feel I was fairly explicit in saying that I dont agree with HOW they are doing it, but it is LEGAL for them at this point in time.
Because you and the rest allow it! Because complacency has eroded our once brass-balled anti-monopoly watchdog gov't!
You seem to think that this state of affairs is O K regardless of your position.
They have every right. They created the product and can do what they wish of it. Just like the media (music, movies and games) industry does. They can decide how they want to end user to experience that product or service.
Anti-consumer maybe but I hardly see how it is anti-free market. Licensing this way doesn't stop any one from creating a competing product. The open-source community has been doing this for years. If anything, it creates more motivation to create a competing product. So you don't need to be forced to the restrictive license.
Microsoft has a monopoly now because there isn't a better alternative out there. There just isn't. For a vast majority of people Windows is the best option. (Prob just started a shitstorm. With that statement. Waiting for the big alpha nerds to come beat up on me the junior nerd.)
It comes down to the fact that corporations exist to make money. They make money by selling things. Products, licenses whatever. This is the best way for Microsoft to make money so they do it. It wouldn't benefit them much to make Windows an open platform that was free to distribute or allow you to use in anyway you please.
1 Like
Again, I will point you to the first sale doctrine. That should apply EVERY TIME I buy something, and a license outright destroys it.
Couple of things
We don't share a Government
I am not alright with how things are
Don't assume what my personal thoughts on any matter are if you either will not ask or will not listen to my stance on said topic.
In addition, every person who has ever purchased software of any kind (with the exception of Linux et. al.) has agreed to the current state of legal affairs regarding software. How many people do you think have ACTUALLY read the T & C for software? I have no idea but I would be shocked if it were more than 1 or 2 %
As for complacency, that is a large assumption my friend - you have NO IDEA who I am IRL, what I do or the issues that I campaign for.