You have buy a machine, not a license. If you want to open it, and mod it on any way you want. Is just a tiny mountain of chips and transistors. You could break it in pieces and use it to fix your refrigerator. Any law that let the creator of the machine perpetuate this locking trough anti-user changes sould get a fine, and any law that help then do that, sould be reverted, and the legislators of these laws be kicked in the ass with a boot.
You have buy a machine, not a license. If you want to open it, and mod it on any way you want. Is just a tiny mountain of chips and transistors. You could break it in pieces and use it to fix your refrigerator. Any law that let the creator of the machine perpetuate this locking trough anti-user changes sould get a fine, and any law that help then do that, sould be reverted, and the legislators of these laws be kicked in the ass with a boot.
Because traditionally they make consoles at a loss. Would you prefer to pay $500 for a hackable Wii? It may seem like they are just spoiling fun but if they couldn't make money off games the Wii itself would never exist. Expecting non-hack users to foot the bill for the hackables isn't fair as well since some one has to pay to develop and manufacture them. Either you will or your neighbor or there won't be anymore Wii's. Ugly truth of the matter.
Whether or not you sell my an item at a loss has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I now own that item, and am free to do whatever I want with it, so long as my use causes no direct physical harm to others. Modding a Wii does not cause any physical harm to anyone, so it should be OK. Or at least it would, if copyright/patent trolls didn't have the ear of legislatures.
If Nintendo sold Wiis at a loss (which they don't, IIRC) and discovered that everyone is now using them only for homebrew, they wo
When you buy a computer, you're not buying just a device; you're also licensing software that makes that device work. So no, your first sale doctrine doesn't really apply because you're not just using a purchased item, you're buying hardware attached to a software license.
You may have trouble with that concept, the same as a vagrant has trouble with the concept of loitering or peeing in public, but the laws are there to protect business models, not to make you feel liberated from needing to pay for things o
When you buy a computer, you're not buying just a device; you're also licensing software that makes that device work. So no, your first sale doctrine doesn't really apply because you're not just using a purchased item, you're buying hardware attached to a software license.
Nope. When I buy a computer I do exactly that - buy a computer. No software or anything. I then install the software of my choice on it.
However, even if that wasn't the case, you're still wrong - at the time of purchase, computer vendors do not present you with a licence agreement to sign. You hand over some money and you get a computer which may or may not have some software on it. At that point, you have _purchased_ everything that is in the box. You might even have an invoice to prove it (I've never seen an invoice that says "Licence to use Windows XP" - instead it will just have "Windows XP" as a line item). At this point, you can do anything with the bundled software that is allowed by copyright law - you have not purchased a licence, you have purchased a copy of the software (note: a copy, not the copyright, so you are still bound by copyright law).
Now, some of that software may have a technical limitation that requires you to agree to an EULA before using it, and that EULA may grant you waivers to the existing copyright law, or rescind rights that you already have such as the right to resell it (although it is debatable as to whether such clauses have any legal foundation in many jurisdictions). You do not have a legal obligation to agree to that licence - you can either choose not to use the software, or you can choose to bypass the licence by technical means without clicking the "I agree" button.
In any case, even if you were to agree to an EULA, proving this in court would be problematic since there is no signature on a bit of paper. The vendor cannot prove that it was you who agreed to it - the "I agree" button may have already been clicked by someone in the shop before you even saw the machine, or your child/dog/neighbour might have done it.
In essence, EULAs are a scare tactic rather than a legally enforceable contract - the vendors hope to scare people into complying with the EULA even though they probably can't make you.
It's very different to take those same devices, and use the existing software against its license to do something you want to do with it in order to violate the deal you got when you bought it.
That simply isn't the case. When someone buys an iPod, games console, CD, DVD, game, etc. they go into the shop and say "I want to buy this", and over some money and get handed the item in return. At no point in that transaction are they told "I'm sorry, you can't purchase that item but we can sell you a licence to use it instead". You are not bound by a licence agreement unless you actually agree to it, so no one is "violating the deal" since the deal was that you bought the *item* (not a usage licence) and thus you can do anything with it you like (subject to various statutory restrictions such as copyright).
Why is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have buy a machine, not a license. If you want to open it, and mod it on any way you want. Is just a tiny mountain of chips and transistors. You could break it in pieces and use it to fix your refrigerator. Any law that let the creator of the machine perpetuate this locking trough anti-user changes sould get a fine, and any law that help then do that, sould be reverted, and the legislators of these laws be kicked in the ass with a boot.
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
You have buy a machine, not a license. If you want to open it, and mod it on any way you want. Is just a tiny mountain of chips and transistors. You could break it in pieces and use it to fix your refrigerator. Any law that let the creator of the machine perpetuate this locking trough anti-user changes sould get a fine, and any law that help then do that, sould be reverted, and the legislators of these laws be kicked in the ass with a boot.
Because traditionally they make consoles at a loss. Would you prefer to pay $500 for a hackable Wii? It may seem like they are just spoiling fun but if they couldn't make money off games the Wii itself would never exist. Expecting non-hack users to foot the bill for the hackables isn't fair as well since some one has to pay to develop and manufacture them. Either you will or your neighbor or there won't be anymore Wii's. Ugly truth of the matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Nintendo sold Wiis at a loss (which they don't, IIRC) and discovered that everyone is now using them only for homebrew, they wo
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
When you buy a computer, you're not buying just a device; you're also licensing software that makes that device work. So no, your first sale doctrine doesn't really apply because you're not just using a purchased item, you're buying hardware attached to a software license.
You may have trouble with that concept, the same as a vagrant has trouble with the concept of loitering or peeing in public, but the laws are there to protect business models, not to make you feel liberated from needing to pay for things o
Re:Why is that legal? (Score:2)
When you buy a computer, you're not buying just a device; you're also licensing software that makes that device work. So no, your first sale doctrine doesn't really apply because you're not just using a purchased item, you're buying hardware attached to a software license.
Nope. When I buy a computer I do exactly that - buy a computer. No software or anything. I then install the software of my choice on it.
However, even if that wasn't the case, you're still wrong - at the time of purchase, computer vendors do not present you with a licence agreement to sign. You hand over some money and you get a computer which may or may not have some software on it. At that point, you have _purchased_ everything that is in the box. You might even have an invoice to prove it (I've never seen an invoice that says "Licence to use Windows XP" - instead it will just have "Windows XP" as a line item). At this point, you can do anything with the bundled software that is allowed by copyright law - you have not purchased a licence, you have purchased a copy of the software (note: a copy, not the copyright, so you are still bound by copyright law).
Now, some of that software may have a technical limitation that requires you to agree to an EULA before using it, and that EULA may grant you waivers to the existing copyright law, or rescind rights that you already have such as the right to resell it (although it is debatable as to whether such clauses have any legal foundation in many jurisdictions). You do not have a legal obligation to agree to that licence - you can either choose not to use the software, or you can choose to bypass the licence by technical means without clicking the "I agree" button.
In any case, even if you were to agree to an EULA, proving this in court would be problematic since there is no signature on a bit of paper. The vendor cannot prove that it was you who agreed to it - the "I agree" button may have already been clicked by someone in the shop before you even saw the machine, or your child/dog/neighbour might have done it.
In essence, EULAs are a scare tactic rather than a legally enforceable contract - the vendors hope to scare people into complying with the EULA even though they probably can't make you.
It's very different to take those same devices, and use the existing software against its license to do something you want to do with it in order to violate the deal you got when you bought it.
That simply isn't the case. When someone buys an iPod, games console, CD, DVD, game, etc. they go into the shop and say "I want to buy this", and over some money and get handed the item in return. At no point in that transaction are they told "I'm sorry, you can't purchase that item but we can sell you a licence to use it instead". You are not bound by a licence agreement unless you actually agree to it, so no one is "violating the deal" since the deal was that you bought the *item* (not a usage licence) and thus you can do anything with it you like (subject to various statutory restrictions such as copyright).