• Dran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should be illegal to sell someone something they do not own. In your windows/office example, I’d say it should be illegal to crack/copy the software, but it should also be illegal to sell the software without an offline method of permanent and irrevocable activation (think offline cd keys), and it should be illegal for a company to put any barriers in front of use (vm, laptop, server, cpu cores, memory limits, etc) and illegal to put any barriers in front of resale. Selling a windows update, or a subscription model to updates seems completely reasonable (and probably should do online blacklists for shared keys) but the fundamentals of ownership shouldn’t be eroded in law.

    In the tesla example, your car should be your car. If you can modify the software to give you more features that’s your car. If tesla wants to sell a subscription to incremental upgrades on their self-driving algorithms that’s fine, but they should be liable for any faults in older revisions if they paywall updates. That incentivizes them to do the software equivalent of a recall when something is egregiously or dangerously broken, and also incentivizes innovation because they can’t sell you an update if it doesn’t contain anything valuable.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But nothing is being sold here. Almost no one sells software nowadays. You are getting a license to use someone else’s software under certain conditions.

      • Dran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Licensing is just a fancy way of saying selling you something that you don’t own.

        • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you don’t own then aren’t selling it, by definition.

          If you go to the movies, do you think that they should sell you the cinema? No, you’re for the right to sit in a seat in the theater for the duration of the movie. That’s it. You know what you’re getting and what you’re paying for. How is software any different?

          They could sell you the software, just like they could sell you the entire cinema, but in neither case can you afford it.

          • Dran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can see your argument, but I think it still stands. A ticket still qualifies as a sale. They aren’t licensing the rights to a film for an hour, they’re selling a physical voucher that grants access to a seat at a specific time during a specific showing. I own that thing and in theory, it’s irrevocable without refunding the purchase price. An operating system and a movie ticket are fundamentally different products.

            In my view, the application would be that there should not be limits imposed on the resale or transfer of said ticket once purchased. To reverse the argument, should a movie theater be allowed to sell a ticket and then revoke it without compensation if you show up in a blue shirt? Current digital licensing laws allow for the equivalent; I hurt nobody by installing windows home in a VM.