

Copyright will bring the end of ownership - omergertel
http://omergertel.com/2010/09/21/do-you-own-your-iphone/

======
jcl
To be fair, the Autodesk case was a little more complicated than the Slashdot
summary makes it sound. A company bought Autodesk's software, then they later
bought an upgrade at a discount and sold the original software to a reseller.

In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could
sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade
discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not
sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.

~~~
omergertel
I must admit I haven't read any deeper, so you may be right. I think, however,
that if you combine the rulings over time, you will notice that the spirit of
the law, as it is interpreted by the courts is in favor of the copyright
owner. And the copyright owners are not in the business of being reasonable.

As Larry Lessig points out, common sense is a rare idea in the practice of
law.

------
philwelch
This is one of those HN submissions where the OP is a restatement of the exact
same arguments we've seen for the past 5-10 years on a given issue, peppered
with various examples we've all seen individually posted and discussed on HN,
and the article is submitted to HN as a social cue for "let's all discuss this
issue over again".

------
Tichy
"The retailer will still wipe an e-book if a court or regulatory body orders
it"

To be fair, a court could probably also order the police to come to your house
and confiscate your paper books. In that sense, you really don't own anything
- ownership is a product of governments. (Or rather, a product of guns).

~~~
mbyrne
You have a point, but it is more accurate to say that government is
established by people to enforce their concept of ownership amongst
themselves. Government isn't source of the concept of ownership, it is the
enforcer of that society's concept of ownership.

Having said that, I advocate that there is a overarching source of ownership
rights, whether they are called moral rights or natural rights or whatever.
For example, I think a person owns his own body and regardless of what the law
says, the government can't visit your house and take one of your kidneys
because someone else wants yours. Other people think that they should be able
to, for the "good" of society.

~~~
billybob
I agree with you, but people who claim not to believe in moral absolutes, such
as "it is wrong to steal someone's kidneys even if the law says you can,"
really should never protest any law, copyright or otherwise, except to say "I
don't personally like that." To say "it's unjust" is to make a claim that, in
their philosophy, means nothing.

Of course, as a Christian, I believe we're endowed by our Creator with certain
unalienable rights...

~~~
Tichy
Or it could just be assumed that "it is unjust" means "I personally think it
is unjust".

------
nocipher
People usually try to skirt this issue. The proponents of copyright laws
stubbornly call anyone who would infringe a thief while those on the other
side of the argument aptly point out the fallacy of such analogies.

The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of
difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. To copy a book
requires either theft from a publisher or pouring through it, page by page,
and manually recreating it. The same is true of old VHS tapes. Some apparatus,
not widely available, was required to make copies that could be redistributed.
Since real effort was required to produce copies, copyright law could
rightfully condemn those who would make copies.

The ubiquity of digital technology has fundamentally changed this. Copying
anything is trivial yet copyright law has been left unchanged. These laws are
simply inadequate for our modern reality.

An overhaul of the whole system by some smart, competent, and knowledgeable
people is necessary. Unfortunately, big media has such stake in the antiquated
laws, and such influence in the legislature (in the US, but very likely abroad
as well), that such a change probably won't happen for a number of years. So,
until then, we are stuck in this lawless landscape where everyone on every
side of the argument is wrong.

~~~
ced
_The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of
difficulty involved in the act of copying another work._

I think you have it upside-down. Before the printing press, there were no
copyrights. It was an honor for the author if someone took the time to copy
his book.

Nowadays, when you buy a book or a CD, you're paying for content, not for the
medium. In that context, maybe "stealing" is not an appropriate word, but
"free-loading" definitely is.

~~~
nocipher
I never thought of it like that. Maybe technology does necessitate rights
management.

Even so, copying is trivial and available to everyone. It is not feasible to
have the granular control necessary to prevent widespread copying and this is
exactly the situation with which we are faced. I argue that the current laws
are inadequate for dealing with the situation and, in fact, I think this is
self-apparent.

Your argument seems to be that what we are buying is somehow different from
what we used to buy. You also seem to have downgraded the act of copying from
theft to some lesser repugnant act. Both of these would suggest that we need
something different from the current copyright system.

You can disagree with my initial synopsis of copyright laws, and your point of
contention there is likely valid, but my message wasn't that copyright laws
were only useful when it was difficult to copy works, but that the laws, as
they exist now, do not fit in a world where content is so liquid and
decentralized.

By no means am I arguing that, because of this, creators should not have their
works protected, but rather that a paradigm shift is necessary to actually
reach that end.

------
bobwaycott
Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software,
then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And,
like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with
using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on
responsibility for your rental.

Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the
future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books,
movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually
purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a
pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or
paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away
anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs,
cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else.

~~~
rick888
"Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the
future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books,
movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually
purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a
pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or
paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away
anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs,
cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else."

As stated by many of the people defending piracy on HN, software isn't a
tangible item. So why should it be treated like a pack of floppies or a
paperback book?

You aren't buying software outright. If you were, it would cost $100,000
rather than $100. You are purchasing a license to use it, which means you can
use it once (and sell it if you want to one person). However, you aren't
allowed to copy it to your friends.

"Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software,
then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And,
like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with
using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on
responsibility for your rental."

Would you also be willing to pay a monthly fee for software that you download?
Why should a company fix your problems forever when you only paid them a one-
time fee?

~~~
billybob
"Would you also be willing to pay a monthly fee for software that you
download? Why should a company fix your problems forever when you only paid
them a one-time fee?"

1) Companies who sell physical goods generally offer a limited-time warranty,
not forever. Software can do likewise. They can also specify what they don't
cover - ie "if you install this on an OS other than what we listed, or use
peripherals that come out in the future which we couldn't have anticipated,
and something doesn't work, you'll have to pay for support or updates to get
our help." 2) I wouldn't expect a company to spend more supporting their
software than they make by selling it. But a company SHOULD help their
customers get their software working because it's good customer support, and
because "fixing my problems" may well mean improving their software. If
they're unwilling to put forth reasonable effort, I'm happy to use their
competitor's product.

~~~
rick888
"But a company SHOULD help their customers get their software working because
it's good customer support, and because "fixing my problems" may well mean
improving their software."

It might improve their software, but most likely it will be a huge expense of
time and money. Most of the time, when there is a problem with installation or
usage of a windows app, it's not related to the application. Another problem
is that there are many people that will blame you for any other number of
problems with their computer. I've worked in both tech support and application
support for 10+ years.

It's a liability for any company that wants to offer support, which is why
they should charge large fees for any type of support.

------
BonsaiDen
The Video in the article is a great example! "This Video contains content from
UMG. It is not available in your country"

~~~
mbyrne
Please clarify, a great example of what?

~~~
BonsaiDen
That the whole copyright thing is getting out of control, soon words will be
copyrighted... Just now some german newspapers plan on copyrighting the stuff
the use in their headlines, yes the sentences/words in the headlines.

~~~
mbyrne
Thanks for clarifying. It might be of interest that The Australian Court just
ruled against copyright claims in headlines.I don't know that copyright is out
of control, but what is out of control is the way that companies use claims of
copyright ownership to bully weaker entities and that carriers cooperate with
this tactic and will take down content or block it based on a worthless claim.
Further that when a false claim is lodged that there seems to be no recourse
or penalty. I have never heard of one.

------
pornel
How can I sell my software for people to own without giving them right to
pirate it?

Honest question. I can only think of adding such user-friendly provisions in a
EULA, but wouldn't that still be licensing?

~~~
stonemetal
The same way people sell books with out giving them the right to pirate them.
You sell a copy, copyright precludes their right to redistribute copies.

------
mbyrne
Question, when you go on vacation, do you rent a hotel room or do you buy a
condo for that trip? If you rent a hotel room, do you take the towels, bed,
and anything else that is not nailed down because you paid a night's rent so
that means you own it all forever? How long should you be able to order room
service, use the spa, and hang out at the pool after you have left the hotel
and stopped paying for room?

~~~
bobwaycott
Hate to say it, but this is a really awful analogy. When you "rent a hotel
room", you are doing just that--RENTING a hotel room. When you walk into Best
Buy or use an online store somewhere to "buy software X", you are justifiably
upset when later told that you were actually RENTING software X. You never
call your local Marriott and ask how much it would cost to BUY a room for a
night in town. You know you are renting. But software, like books, music,
movies, houses, and cars is SOLD.

Come to think of it, houses and cars are much better for analogy. Nobody ever
confuses renting a home with purchasing a home. Completely different
expectations and end results. Same goes for cars. Now, you are within your
rights to be both dumbfounded and irate if you are told years later by the
builder of the house (or car manufacturer) that you cannot sell your home or
your car to another party because they have not given express permission for
you to transfer ownership.

~~~
rick888
"you are justifiably upset when later told that you were actually RENTING
software X"

You aren't renting it. You are paying for a license. Renting implies that you
are paying the company a monthly fee to use it, which rarely happens with
packaged software (unless you are buying support or paying for some sort of
service). You get one license to use it. You just can't share it with all of
your friends for free or start selling multiple copies of it (which is
understandable).

"Now, you are within your rights to be both dumbfounded and irate if you are
told years later by the builder of the house (or car manufacturer) that you
cannot sell your home or your car to another party because they have not given
express permission for you to transfer ownership."

Since so many people like you are bitching about how buying software isn't
actually "buying", it leads me to believe that most people already know this.
If this wasn't the case, I think we would see more lawsuits in the US.

