tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3290454921297587907.post7613670200728868846..comments2012-10-04T22:33:24.318-07:00Comments on Sold, Not Licensed: The Basics: Start HereDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15460049499083017609noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3290454921297587907.post-44410166241377139222010-12-22T05:51:32.452-08:002010-12-22T05:51:32.452-08:00US copyright law speaks of ownership of copies. No...US copyright law speaks of ownership of <b>copies</b>. No conceptual problem exists with the concept of <b>copy</b> ownership. This is because copies are specifically and unambiguously defined as <b>material objects</b> by US law. Even for software, there is no conceptual problem with this. For every copy of software, there is a material object that <b>is</b> the copy. When you download software online, the copy is created on your hard drive or whatever media you choose to store it on. If you own the hard drive (or other media), then you own the copy. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />Any copyrightable thing must exist in a tangible form. If a piece of software was truly an ephemeral thing then it would not even be copyrightable in the first place. A work must be fixed in a material object before it can obtain copyright protection.<br /><br />The bottom line is that it should never be copyright infringement to simply use a copy of something for its intended purpose. Just as the act of reading a book (its intended purpose) is not copyright infringement, so too running software on a computer (its intended purpose) should not be copyright infringement. Yet many in the software industry believe that simply using software for its intended purpose should be copyright infringement, and that a user therefore must be licensed to use the software in order to avoid prosecution for copyright infringement. That is very wrong-headed. As a software developer myself, I find it morally repugnant and I would never do such a thing with the software that I create.<br /><br />Note that not requiring a license isn't the same thing as "open source" or "free software". Proprietary software can do just fine by relying on copyright law alone rather than these so-called EULAs.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15460049499083017609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3290454921297587907.post-66429686690107051862010-12-21T12:44:22.364-08:002010-12-21T12:44:22.364-08:00It really depends on how you bought the software. ...It really depends on how you bought the software. If you picked up a CD at Walmart then yeah, sure. What you say applies to some extent.<br /><br />But I see nothing wrong with the following situation: you go online, you see a description of the software you like. You find out however that they don't sell copies. They can license you to use the software if you wish. And here's the text of the license you'll have to accept. Want it? Great, pay for the license and you've got it. The license, that is. Not the software itself.<br /><br />I mean there's a serious conceptual problem with the concept of software ownership. The only deliverable is a chunk of data. An ephemeral thing, like a concert performance. You may not even make copies of it except as allowed by the copyright law. What exactly have you bought then? There is nothing "ownable" to speak of. The best way to describe this, IMO, is that you bought the right to use it a certain way: namely, the way described in the attached document titled "The EULA".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3290454921297587907.post-77123994607023725052010-07-24T19:51:35.290-07:002010-07-24T19:51:35.290-07:00A great article.A great article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com