Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law (Read 9655 times)

Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

In the early days of this forum (the good old times) when issues such as site icons and smilie images came up, there was the recurring question of licenses - if this or that is "free" (not free as in grabbable because it's just lying around in the interwebs but free to use as per its accompanying license).

There's often some disconnect between end-user licenses of a thing and what a thing could actually be good for. For example according to some review, a version of Microsoft Surface tablet is great for business use - it even comes with MS Office! However, the Office has a home user license, i.e. free for non-commercial use as per license. (the review)

Are things inseparable from their licenses, creation inseparable from creator's intent, property inseparable from its title deed, or do users have some inalienable license of their own too? If yes, how do you motivate and define the limits?

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #1 –
The funny thing about these software licences is that there's often a lot of crap in them that's not enforceable, depending on the country you're in. For example, in .de courts seem to think that if you bought something then you can sell it, no matter if the licence says you can't ( Windows OEM install discs are a prominent example )

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Macallan on
For example, in .de courts seem to think that if you bought something then you can sell it, no matter if the licence says you can't ( Windows OEM install discs are a prominent example )
Come to think of it,  I seem to think that the concepts of buying and selling should not depend on what courts seem to think. When I bought something, it's mine and of course I can do whatever I want with it, resell it, borrow it, give it away or take it apart in any manner thinkable, including reverse engineer and copy. This is what buying and selling means. Particularly software licensing makes the act of paying feel more like rent or tax rather than buying.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #3 –
Guys, cool down. There are cases you won't cast out.
The second case is "the China Tricky Bastard".
The first case is - can you vivisect the dog you've bought?
There ARE cases -- both moral and practical.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #4 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: Macallan on
For example, in .de courts seem to think that if you bought something then you can sell it, no matter if the licence says you can't ( Windows OEM install discs are a prominent example )
Come to think of it,  I seem to think that the concepts of buying and selling should not depend on what courts seem to think. When I bought something, it's mine and of course I can do whatever I want with it, resell it, borrow it, give it away or take it apart in any manner thinkable, including reverse engineer and copy. This is what buying and selling means. Particularly software licensing makes the act of paying feel more like rent or tax rather than buying.

Exactly, the point was wether the seller can impose that kind of conditions and if the buyer would be bound by them. In some countries he can. And if they can get around it by pretending that they don't actually sell you anything.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #5 –
Quote from: ersi on
Are things inseparable from their licenses, creation inseparable from creator's intent, property inseparable from its title deed, or do users have some inalienable license of their own too? If yes, how do you motivate and define the limits?

Under Dutch copyright law it's largely a difference between commercial or public and personal use. You're free to make copies etc. for the purpose of studying something. That's called a home copy. It's completely legal to copy media you borrow from the library, or to download such from the Internet. Belgian copyright law contains similar clauses, but I don't know what subtle differences there are precisely.

The local RIAA equivalent tends to act like they have no idea what the law actually says, apparently operating under the illusion that we live in the far more oppressive US.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Macallan on
The funny thing about these software licences is that there's often a lot of crap in them that's not enforceable, depending on the country you're in.

Absolutely. Most of software license's content (specially from American origin) are totally illegal in my country and the contracts themselves can be considered "leonine", which means with an huge disproportion about the rights between both parts and therefore can be considered null.

There's no such a thing as "you've signed, you've accepted" in law systems that originates mainly from the Roman concept of Law and not from some consuetudinary origin.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
There's no such a thing as "you've signed, you've accepted" in law systems that originates mainly from the Roman concept of Law and not from some consuetudinary origin.

If you're contrasting that with the situation in America, you've been misinformed. Just because they can write any old junk in an "EULA" doesn't mean it's legally valid in the US either.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
If you're contrasting that with the situation in America, you've been misinformed.

I couldn't care less for situation in America, Frenzie, it happens that many, (the majority?) of software for personal usage comes from the US.

It's inadmissible that softwares I bought can't be reinstalled again when old computers goes to trash and many other situations. So, I pirate them the most I can.
Intelligent companies that actually gives a good service in exchange for fair payment, I prefer to buy their products. I still believe in the value of intellectual production.

By the way, confession also doesn't have any legal value here but I suppose it will have in the USA. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Quote from: Frenzie on
If you're contrasting that with the situation in America, you've been misinformed.

I couldn't care less for situation in America, Frenzie, it happens that many, (the majority?) of software for personal usage comes from the US.

It's inadmissible that softwares I bought can't be reinstalled again when old computers goes to trash and many other situations. So, I pirate them the most I can.
Intelligent companies that actually gives a good service in exchange for fair payment, I prefer to buy their products. I still believe in the value of intellectual production.

By the way, confession also doesn't have any legal value here but I suppose it will have in the USA. :)


They'd have to bring you to an American court to make that confession stick. I have a suspicion that if they tried to enforce the EULA in a Portuguese court the attorneys would have to explain the facts of life in Portugal to them.

It should be noted that even here in the "oppressive US" a lot of that stuff in the EULAs is felgercarb and everybody knows it. The big companies have bigger fish to fry than chasing you because you put an OEM copy on a replacement machine. I wonder if even the people who write that stuff actually read it.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #10 –
On the matter of installation of software on a new machine: some time ago now I bought a new PC. As delivered it had Vista installed on it. However at that time MS were running a special advance promotion for the then-new W7 at a low price so I bought that and installed it on my new machine. That worked exceptionally well because I then had a clean machine without the silly add-ons that PC manufacturers insist on bundling into the installation.  With the new installation I reinstalled software that I had bought previously and in the course of that checked the conditions of their original sale. In all the cases I checked, the conditions merely said that it could be installed on one machine only, which I interpreted as meaning one at a time, especially after that was mentioned explicitly on one or two of the SW packages. At no time did I see a statement saying that it could be installed only once, nor did the wording imply that.

I subsequently read in a magazine (reference link for that is long gone I'm afraid) that the same is true for Windows itself should one buy a new machine and want W7 in it. That has not happened yet so I've not checked that recently.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #11 –
Quote from: string on
I subsequently read in a magazine (reference link for that is long gone I'm afraid) that the same is true for Windows itself should one buy a new machine and want W7 in it. That has not happened yet so I've not checked that recently.

It depends on who is doing the installing. When my wife's laptop needed to be repaired, the owner of the shop removed W8 and installed W7, then did the same for my machine which came with W8 installed.

I'm sure the Windows Police would like to know about it.  8)

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #12 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
It should be noted that even here in the "oppressive US" a lot of that stuff in the EULAs is felgercarb and everybody knows it.

Ok, ok... I know that America is not sooo bad as it seems... :)

The problem is that I don't see strong enough software consumer rights organizations. That's really the problem.

How can such organizations be strong with so many different partial laws, how can those organizations be strong without any laws worldwide (thanks God...) ?
How can those organizations even operate according local (inexistent) laws?
How can those organizations fight an army of lawyers financed by the most lucrative business in the world?

By pirating, that's the only answer I see.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #13 –
Quote from: string on

In all the cases I checked, the conditions merely said that it could be installed on one machine only, which I interpreted as meaning one at a time, especially after that was mentioned explicitly on one or two of the SW packages. At no time did I see a statement saying that it could be installed only once, nor did the wording imply that.

Good that the licenses don't go quite as far as forbidding multiple attempts to install, but the demand to install on one machine only is nuts enough. At least Windows OS is explicit in demanding this. New "genuine" or authenticated Win PC's come with a sticker displaying the unique identity code on it. The OS disc that you get along with the purchase, should be used for reinstalls on that machine only. Also, as far as I know, you are not even allowed to install some other OS on the machine to replace Windows, at least not as long as the warranty lasts. Not simply discouraged, but forbidden, it's an illegal operation.

Since XP, I have seen some cute instructions on Windows how to check if you have a genuine authenticated PC. The instruction: Check the identity code in the OS and on the sticker on the machine. If these match, you are authenticated, yoohoo! The heartwarming benefit of being authenticated is that Microsoft call centre deems you worthy of their help. In real life, I don't know any individual who has relied on official Microsoft helpdesk. I know of companies though. Private persons simply go to some shop around the corner that says "old computers" and they get all their help there.

I know of a woman who bought a computer that came with Ubuntu preinstalled. This was a choice out of ignorance on her part. She assumed all computers came with Windows. She had heard of Macs too, but "Macs is what they use only in America" (my story is from another continent of course). When she ran into trouble with the computer, she took it to an "old computers" shop, where the OS was promptly replaced with Windows, because "that's what everybody uses" said the shop personnel, and of course it made the woman happy to see familiar icons again. And we can be sure that the disc to install the Windows had been used on tons of machines before and is still being used, because it's Win 7, the leatest greatest from MS. The absolute latest from MS is unfortunately crap and has not been picked up by those shops yet.

This is how all second-hand computer shops operate that I know of - with blatant disregard to the licenses of the biggies. The biggies can't enforce their unnatural rules even within their own industry, so there's not much of a chance to educate the userhood to behave according to EULA either.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #14 –
Quote from: string on
the conditions merely said that it could be installed on one machine only, which I interpreted as meaning one at a time, especially after that was mentioned explicitly on one or two of the SW packages. At no time did I see a statement saying that it could be installed only once, nor did the wording imply that.


That's correct. You can install Windows (or any other software) on one machine only, except you have a license for more machines. In case you trash the maschine you can install it on a new one.

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
When my wife's laptop needed to be repaired, the owner of the shop removed W8 and installed W7, then did the same for my machine which came with W8 installed.

I'm sure the Windows Police would like to know about it. 8)


The Windows Police wouldn't care since you probably got a valid serial key for your Win7. It's not forbidden to downgrade Windows.
However Microsoft made it difficult for the average user to do so.

Quote from: Belfrager on
How can those organizations fight an army of lawyers financed by the most lucrative business in the world?

By pirating, that's the only answer I see.


IMHO that's the wrong approach.

I would like to see laws in every country that prosecute owners of pirated Windows and punish them with draconic sentences.
Only problem is that it can't work without Microsoft's help. Microsoft will rather turn a blind eye to piracy than losing market share to another OS.
Now China is developing its own OS (Unix derivate). Wonder how Microsoft (or the US administration) feels about it.
What if India and other countries will follow China's path? Will they be blocked through browser sniffing?

As for applications, nobody is forced to use/purchase shareware.
With the exception of one application (Office 2003 which I got a valid licence for as gift) I'm using only freeware/free software.


Quote from: ersi on
The OS disc that you get along with the purchase, should be used for reinstalls on that machine only. Also, as far as I know, you are not even allowed to install some other OS on the machine to replace Windows, at least not as long as the warranty lasts. Not simply discouraged, but forbidden, it's an illegal operation.


I can't confirm the above.
In case you trash your mashine you can reinstall the OS on another mashine with an OS disc you have a license key for. I did it myself for friends. They even registered to Microsoft after that and never had problems. Only limitation, you are forbidden to install from your licensed OS disc on more than one computer.

Quote from: ersi on
New "genuine" or authenticated Win PC's come with a sticker displaying the unique identity code on it. The OS disc that you get along with the purchase, should be used for reinstalls on that machine only.


Those are probably surrogate OS discs, some trash like recovery discs. I'm a speaking about real OS discs you can also buy at a shop. When I purchased this mashine I got also a real OS disc which I could install on every mashine (taking into consideration the limitation of only one mashine at once).

It's also not forbidden or illegal to replace Windows during waranty. You may lose your waranty but that's not the same as "forbidden" or "illegal".

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #15 –
Quote from: krake on

Quote from: ersi on
The OS disc that you get along with the purchase, should be used for reinstalls on that machine only. Also, as far as I know, you are not even allowed to install some other OS on the machine to replace Windows, at least not as long as the warranty lasts. Not simply discouraged, but forbidden, it's an illegal operation.


I can't confirm the above.
In case you trash your mashine you can reinstall the OS on another mashine with an OS disc you have a license key for. I did it myself for friends. They even registered to Microsoft after that and never had problems. Only limitation, you are forbidden to install from your licensed OS disk on more than one computer.
It's also not forbidden or illegal to replace Windows during waranty. You may lose your waranty but that's not the same as "forbidden" or "illegal".
Well, I never meant to go into legal nuances. Even from afar the thing looks messy enough.

From what I have read, Microsoft imposes agreements to computer sellers that dual-boot machines must never be sold, and this is the de facto situation too. A computer salesman is not an end user, but this agreement effectively means they can't sell whatever computers they think best. Computer salesmen have less fun at work and less motivation to really educate end users in various tech stuff. And a quick googling shows that Microsoft is enhancing these policies http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Bans+LinuxAndroid+DualBooting+on+Windows+8+ARM+Devices/article23785.htm The way I see it, these policies are unjustifiable, even though may be legal.

You, on the other hand, seem to condemn pirating. What is pirating and why is it condemnable?

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #16 –
I can't see that duel booting tactic being sustainable in the long run. The logical result is that a favoured way of buying a PC would turn to an "empty" one, sufficient only to allow the fresh booting of an OS of choice. (I refer, of courses, to the PC intelligentsia which is wot u is  ;)) That would certainly be my first preference for my next computer. The Microsoft tactic of subsidising new machines with a so-called "cut-down cost" of Windows gives them some sort of argument for claiming "special" treatment but the monopoly laws would soon put a stop to any attempt to block out competitors in an "empty machine". I'm sure about that as far as the EU is concerned, less so for the US. In China I guess they have their own way of "making you surf".

As a matter of interest, I reckon that Google are well on their way to doing exactly what Microsoft want to do with respect to Android for tablets, phones etc. The same arguments apply there, but with a huge market. I would not be surprised if the first battles were fought in that arena.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #18 –
Quote from: krake on
I would like to see laws in every country that prosecute owners of pirated Windows and punish them with draconic sentences.

Why draconian? This seems to be one of the many cases where there's a big difference between commercial and non-commercial use. Are you using a pirated copy of Windows with a pirated copy of Photoshop in your design business? Heck yeah, you're doing a bad thing. Are you a teen using a copyright infringing copy of Windows with a copyright infringing copy of Photoshop for study purposes? Legally that's different than the completely legal copies of e.g. books, music, and movies I was referring to, but should it be?

Besides, legal schmegal, I used a cracked copy of Solidworks even though I had a completely legal version because I could use it offline without requiring access to the authentication server. In the long-term I make an effort to stay as far away from DRM-ed software as possible, but in the short term things are different while still morally transparent.

Quote from: krake on
Only problem is that it can't work without Microsoft's help. Microsoft will rather turn a blind eye to piracy than losing market share to another OS.

Do they? What about all the Windows Genuine Advantage stuff?

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #19 –
Quote from: ersi on
What is pirating and why is it condemnable?

That's the first problem, the industry has been trying to call "pirating" to what is nothing but technological evolution and, mainly, an evolution on old business models.
Basically it's like pretending to forbid electric cars because someone wants to force people to buy gasoline at absurd high prices.

Torrents it's a good example for that. No one is pirating anything, people share small bit of data (that they are absolutely free to do it under any legislation), useless by itself, from hundreds or thousands of different sources worldwide and then a software is able to "mount" all those bits of data and give it sense.
If there's any problem, it will be corporation's problem, not user's problem.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #20 –
Not all software developers, or authors of things that get published on the Net are large corporations, some are there only because they can make a living out of people that buy their products. I can see a lot of self-justification in the defence of pirating. The firms that make substantial products, like Microsoft, like Norton etc only have themselves to blame of course by setting ludicrous prices for their products which invite, even force, potential customers to pay these high prices, but those are the high profile types,

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #21 –
Quote from: ersi on

Microsoft imposes agreements to computer sellers that dual-boot machines must never be sold, and this is the de facto situation too.

I'm aware of such practices and some other even worse. I'm against such practices but it's up to politicians to regulate the market or leave it at the discretion of some monopolists. We as an user can little do about it and IMO piracy will rather help the monopolist/Microsoft.

Quote from: ersi on

The way I see it, these policies are unjustifiable, even though may be legal.

AFAIK they are illegal, at least here in Germany but tolerated because of political considerations...

Quote from: ersi on

You, on the other hand, seem to condemn pirating. What is pirating and why is it condemnable?

I'm against software piracy for different reasons:

A. Monopolist Microsoft

The more pirated Microsoft OS, the less incentive to search for alternatives.
A worldwide totally ban of pirated MS-OS would make alternatives like an open source/free OS even more attractive, maybe not stringent in wealthy countries but in those (the majority) where every $ counts.
Beat the devil with its own arms :) I hope you can follow my reasoning.

B. Individual programmers who spend hundreds and thousands of working hours trying to make something usefull and hope to get rewarded in case their product is valued.

What options have such programmers?

a. The donation button. Nice but unfortunately it doesn't work.
b. Offer your software to some distributors (like Download.com) who will pay you a lick off but will bundle your software with crapware.
c. Lock the software and make it shareware. Only problem, it's almost impossible to lock the software at a degree it can't be hacked.
d. Give it up or sell your software to a company in case you get an acceptable offer and never look back.
I hope you can follow my reasoning.

Quote from: Frenzie on

Are you a teen using a copyright infringing copy of Windows with a copyright infringing copy of Photoshop for study purposes?

You don't have to use neither Windows nor Photoshop for study purposes.
How about a Unix derivate and GIMP?
Besides if you've got a mashine with Windows preinstalled and don't want to use GIMP, you can buy maybe Photoshop for a discount fee (for students).

Quote from: Frenzie on

Legally that's different than the completely legal copies of e.g. books, music, and movies I was referring to, but should it be?

Totally different IMO. I have no scruples pirating the above ;)

Quote from: Frenzie on
What about all the Windows Genuine Advantage stuff?

AFAIK you can bypass that halfhearted WGA or am I missing something? ;)

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #22 –
Quote from: krake on
Besides if you've got a mashine with Windows preinstalled and don't want to use GIMP, you can buy maybe Photoshop for a discount fee (for students).

More to the point is Photoshop Elements. I think the student license for Photoshop still exceeds €300. But I quite agree: use Gimp or Paint.Net or… You really should master a more basic program before Photoshop even means anything. And Gimp isn't even that much more basic, anyway.

Quote from: krake on
Totally different IMO. I have no scruples pirating the above

But those too were made by hard-working people.

Re: Imposed licencing versus Natural Law

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

But those too were made by hard-working people.

You have a valid point Frenzie. (almost :) )
However, the Robin Hood spirit in me can't conform.
For artists and writers even pirated distributions means publicity and popularity (lifting their market value).
As for the RIAA, fluck them.