lol! With a burning screw!
vinylrake Wrote:I blame Microsoft for starting it all with those ridiculous End User License Agreements which basically said you were only purchasing the right to "run" the software but the software itself remained Microsoft's and if they told you to, you had to remove it from your machine.
I think everything like this has evolved from the strict reliance on written law - and therefore lawyers - to spell out every single little frickin' detail lest someone try to take advantage of what is not included (which is impossible - hence keeping lawyers employed forever), while ignoring common sense completely. Once "common sense" became less relied upon and the word of law was everything, then people started figuring out "well, if subparagraph B didn't include a comma there then obviously the whole paragraph doesn't apply to blah blah blah".
You can see this everywhere, but watching the evolution of the EULA you can see how they've gone from one paragraph to one page of really small print.
The origin of the EULA came from someone way back in the 80's declaring that since they purchased a copy of the software they owned the software itself (yeah, that's common sense - NOT) - probably because the
code was included in the copy. Thus ever since you are only buying a
license to use the software. I don't agree that the software owner has the right to say you must remove the software at some point - that's like a publisher saying they have the right to force you to return/destroy the book even though you purchased it - makes no sense. This is probably a natural evolution from the fact that they went with a "license" to use a copy rather than owning a copy to run without any other rights (such as copyrights). Licenses are one way people keep control.
I could never understand why it wasn't treated like a book from the get-go. You buy a
copy of a book, but you don't own the copyright (duh - really?). Very simple. Same with music: you buy a copy of the music but you don't own the copyright. Why this wasn't the same with software is a mystery to me.
From there it seems to me that you could make as many copies of your copy as you like
for personal use. I see nothing wrong with making a casette copy of a CD to play in your car, or making a CD copy of a CD to play in your car. A slight fine-line appears in my mind if you have made multiple copies that are being used
at the same time - to me this is
duplicating rather than making copies for convenience (where you
could be using the one original).
With software I can understand where MS could expect you to but two copies of Word if you are using them on two machines, BUT to me this should only be expected if you use the software
simultaneously (i.e. you and your child are both using Word at the same time). If one person only uses it once in a blue moon, what's the difference between person B using it while person A doesn't and removing/installing it on person B's computer and then removing/installing it back to person A's? As long as the
use is not simultaneous, then it acts like one copy -
just like passing a book back and forth between two people.
In a corporate environment it makes sense to me to purchase licenses (copies) for X number of "seats" (100 copies can be used at the same time, etc.) - otherwise selling one copy for 100 employees is unfair to the software publisher. In this case it's just like buying 100 copies of a book to distribute for use within the company.
Seems very cut and dry to me.
and the casette tapes of the 80's, is doomed.
