You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, EPENEX said:

Just use free (libre) software. If it doesn't respect your freedom, you shouldn't be using it unless you have a good reason- and then you should know the drawbacks and limitations. This is why I do not buy games on Steam.

It's not just steam, its all software companies and companies that produce content/art/music.  This is the result of copyright/IP in a digital age.  It's all new ground really.

[TheLaserCucumber]

On 7/30/2018 at 12:21 PM, Delicieuxz said:

If a person's Windows license key becomes locked by Microsoft due to being registered with too many different systems, that person can call Microsoft support and have the key de-registered from all the systems they aren't using it with. So, there's an inconvenience involved with having to contact Microsoft support, but it doesn't actually deny people's right to keep using their owned Windows instance.

They already locked a key of mine, I called them and the guy on the phone told me they can do nothing about it, because once it’s locked, it’s locked and you can’t unlock it.

[Delicieuxz]

6 minutes ago, TheLaserCucumber said:

They already locked a key of mine, I called them and the guy on the phone told me they can do nothing about it, because once it’s locked, it’s locked and you can’t unlock it.

I haven't heard of that before. I once had a retail Windows 7 key registered to the maximum allowed number of devices and so I couldn't register it again on a new system, but I called Microsoft support as asked the person to de-register it from one of the older systems, which they did.

 

Which edition of Windows is your key for, and is it a retail or OEM license?

[TheLaserCucumber]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

I haven't heard of that before. I once had a retail Windows 7 key registered to the maximum allowed number of devices and so I couldn't register it again on a new system, but I called Microsoft support as asked the person to de-register it from one of the older systems, which they did.

 

Which edition of Windows is your key for, and is it a retail or OEM license?

It was an OEM Windows 7 license transferred to windows 10 that I got from a PC that went out of service from work.

They‘re technically allowed to lock that one either, because the OEM keys aren’t bound (or at least weren’t back in Windows 7 times) to the specific system they came with, so the same rules should apply.

Also selling second hand keys and software to others is allowed in Germany, OEM licenses included, cause you own them.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, TheLaserCucumber said:

It was an OEM Windows 7 license transferred to windows 10 that I got from a PC that went out of service from work.

They‘re technically allowed to lock that one either, because the OEM keys aren’t bound (or at least weren’t back in Windows 7 times) to the specific system they came with, so the same rules should apply.

Also selling second hand keys and software to others is allowed in Germany, OEM licenses included, cause you own them.

OEM keys have always been bound to one computer (essentially a single use license).  You can get them moved to another PC pretty easy, but they are still technically bound and sold cheaper on those grounds.

[Delicieuxz]

I just came across this article detailing a 2013 USA Supreme Court case where the USA's SC ruled 6 - 3 that people are entitled to resell their copyrighted goods (which includes software) without the copyright-holder's permission:

 

Supreme Court Boosts Right to Resell Copyrighted Goods

 

That includes software licenses:

Quote

The decision (.pdf) by Justice Stephen Breyer was a major endorsement of the right of a purchaser of legitimate copyright-protected works to resell or use the work without the copyright holder's permission. That’s why used bookstores, libraries, GameStop, video rental stores and even eBay were on thin ice pending Tuesday's decision.

 

...

 

The Software & Information Industry Association, a software-maker and digital-content trade group, blasted the decision.

 

"The ruling for Kirtsaeng will send a tremor through the publishing industries, harming both U.S. businesses and students around the world," the group's general counsel, Keith Kuperschmid said in a statement. "Today's decision will create a strong disincentive for publishers to market different versions and sell copies at different prices in different regions. The practical result may very well be that consumers and students abroad will see dramatic price increases or entirely lose their access to valuable U.S. educational resources created specifically for them."

 

So, while I said in the OP that the matter of software ownership hasn't gone to the USA's Supreme Court, it appears that like the position that people are allowed to resell their software licenses has indirectly already been ruled on by the USA's SC.

 

So, any EULA which claims that the license owner may not resell their software, or that the license is non-transferable, is invalid.

[wasab]

I own the games I purchased. If I am wrong then the moderators are wrong. If I am wrong, then the developers are wrong. If I am wrong, then steam license agreement is wrong. If I am wrong, then valve is wrong. If I am wrong, then the courts are wrong. If I am wrong, then this country is wrong. If I am wrong, then the entire world is wrong! 

 

For those not understanding US history, this is a parody of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I do agree we have the rights to the games we purchased. 

[wasab]

On 7/30/2018 at 1:17 AM, Delicieuxz said:

That's right, you don't own the code, which is a part of the intellectual property.

 

However, an instance of that code is also called "the game", just as "the software" can refer to the IP or licensed instances of the IP. And so, there is a matter of semantics at hand.

 

The goods, even as perpetual licenses with each granting an all-encompassing eternal right to use an instance of the IP including all property rights over that instance and the right to resell it per the holder's sole discretion, is fully indistinguishable from owning a non-reproduceable copy of the IP. The perpetual license and the ownership of an instance of the software IP are one and the same thing.

 

As the perpetual license is sold, bought, and owned, so is the non-reproduceable instance of the software IP that license represents.

 

Modern licenses are almost always perpetual. If you aren't paying a recurring subscription fee to keep renewing your software license, it's perpetual.

 

Contract laws do not allow a clause that a license can be terminated unilaterally by the publisher for any reason that wasn't pre-established before the contract was agreed to. Such a claim would be invalid and you won't see such a claim in any EULA that was written by a legal expert. In fact, I think you are unlikely to find such a claim in any modern EULA.

 

Such a claim flies in the face of the logic of selling something: Once something is sold the party that sold it no longer retains any decision-making authority over it. So, no publisher could claim to invalidate a license that they don't own because they already sold it to somebody.

 

That might have been one of the many made-up clauses that EULAs in the past have had before publishers realized that such a claim is invalid. As I've written, EULAs are not laws, and many times they aren't written by legal experts - and even when they are they are commonly filled with wording meant to suggest invalid things without outright claiming them.

 

Other old-school EULA claims that you don't see anymore because they were never legal in the first place include:

 

- By using this software you waive all rights to sue the publisher or developer

- You may not reverse-engineer this software

- this license is non-transferable

 

 

Another one that is mostly invalid but which you might see in modern EULAs (I think it was in the Windows 10 EULA until recently): If you're a US citizen then you may only sue the publisher or developer in a particular state. Various states in the USA specifically forbid any contractual claims that violate consumer rights, and the right to sue for damages and to seek justice.

 

As I said, I think that the Windows 10 EULA used to contain that mostly-invalid clause, though the Windows 10 EULA I've just looked at appears to have modified that clause to be more ambiguous and suggestive rather than declarative:

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

 

 

It used to claim that US citizens may only sue Microsoft in either California or Washington... I don't exactly remember which state though I thought it was California. The what I think is updated language is merely suggestive that people may (not may only) sue Microsoft in Washington... which is meant to get people to assume that that's the only state they can sue Microsoft in, when that isn't the reality.

 

As I wrote in the OP, EULAs are also used to trick people into assuming things that aren't necessarily true through strongly-suggestive though ambiguous wording, through intimidation by appearance of authority (despite EULAs not being laws), and through legally-indefensible claims.

 

It was against Microsoft's interest to claim that people could only bring lawsuits against Microsoft in a particular state because that is something outside of Microsoft's authority to decide and it was invalid for Microsoft to assert anything in that regard. So, Microsoft has changed the wording to merely sound as if people can't sue the company in states other than Washington, even though the EULA is not actually claiming such, and such wouldn't be true if it were claimed by Microsoft.

Can I patent automobile and ban Toyota and Ford from manafauring cars? Can wright brothers patent all aircraft designs and prevent boing from making air planes? Too much IP retards innovation. After all, why would anyone spend their time to improve upon your ideas if you are just gonna end up suing them for it?

 

This is one reason I love open source software more than propeiatry ones.

[wasab]

On 7/30/2018 at 1:37 AM, mr moose said:

True and false in Australia, here you have a right to use the software indefinitely unless the software vendor specifically says the product will only work for X years.  Support is different than ability to use.  Here you have bought the rights to use the software, you have not bought a right to decompile it or copy it.  At best the courts might side with you if you modify the software to do something else but you don't  circumvent DRM, let anyone else use it nor make money beyond the original intent of the software (I.E you modify it to circumvent access fees to linked services).

 

 

As if companies and governments don't reverse engineer. Get your competitors products, reverse engineer to see what make them tick, then incoprate some of its design features into your own, are all common steps in R&D. Companies do it, governments do it. How else do you think Soviets come up with AK47? They done it by studying German G44 rfiles. 

[Delicieuxz]

I think that being allowed to reverse-engineer your property is an inherent right. It is in other Western countries, like the USA. The 'not allowed to reverse-engineer this software' clause seen in older EULAs is mostly retired because it, like dozens of other passe EULA clauses, were never legally-defensible in the first place and risked invalidating any EULA that it was put into.

 

EULAs are gong shows, with it being a general rule that the more they claim, the more they can be ignored. And all of the biggest software companies are guilty of writing absurd EULAs at one time or another. Microsoft wrote lots in the past, with their EULAs becomes less assumptive and more conforming to law over time as perception of reality sunk in.

 

 

 

Lots of, maybe most EULAs are not not written by knowledgeable or researched people, but by people who just see the formats of previous EULAs and make assumptions from seeing those about what the nature of an EULA is, and then just copy and paste the terms they like the sound of from other EULAs.

 

For an example of that, here's SEGA's EULA for Dawn of War III, released April 2017:

 

https://store.steampowered.com/eula/285190_eula_1

 

Here's what it says about ownership:

 

Quote

3. NO RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PRODUCT, AND YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL SUCH RIGHTS ARE AND SHALL FOREVER BE OWNED BY AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF SEGA

 

In the DoW III EULA, SEGA has erroneously conflated the Dawn of War III software IP with the software product. They are distinct things. The IP is what the product is based on, while the product is what is marketed and sold to customers. Whatever is sold to somebody else is definitively owned and the property of whoever it has been sold to. The buyers of the product rightfully own and hold all property rights over their purchased products - just not the IPs that their purchased products are based on.

 

SEGA claiming that people don't own their products purchased from SEGA could cause SEGA legal trouble, if anybody cared to give it to them, as (if they choose to argue that their EULA holds true) SEGA is basically announcing that they're stealing from everybody who buys DoW III by taking their money and then denying delivery of the goods that were promised. So, SEGA has put itself in the position where either its EULA isn't applicable, or SEGA is guilty of defrauding possibly millions of DoW III purchasers - depending on whether SEGA would choose to stand behind its EULA.

 

Since SEGA would likely not want to be guilty of defrauding all DoW III purchasers, they would probably concede that the EULA isn't lawful, and therefore it's as if there exists no DoW III EULA.

 

 

The DoW III EULA also claims:

Quote

SEGA hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited, fully revocable right and license to use the Game Software or Game Footage with your User-Generated Content

 

It is invalid in the USA, in Europe, in Australia, and elsewhere to claim that a license is non-transferable or revocable (meaning the license can be cancelled unilaterally by the publisher at any time). That claim in the SEGA EULA holds no weight whatsoever. If a license (a right to use a software IP) is sold by the publisher, then it is no longer the publisher's to be able to choose what happens to the license. So, they can't cancel something (the license, which is the right to use the IP via an instance of it) that isn't theirs to make any decisions regarding.

 

 

And here's another wound to the integrity of SEGA's Dawn of War III EULA:

Quote

6. LICENSE CONDITIONS
You agree to only use the Product, or any part of it, in a manner that is consistent with this Agreement, and you SHALL NOT:

(e) reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, copy, or create derivative works of the Product, in whole or in part;

 

Because a person is entitled to do as they please with their property, and because the only top-court rulings in the world affirm that software and software licenses are bought property, people are therefore entitled to reverse-engineer and modify their owned software. It is the same with all digital property and that is why there are well-known US-based online communities centred around making fan edits of the Star Wars films that never come under legal threat from 21st Century Fox, LucasFilm, or Disney. It is lawful for people to modify their property (their owned instances of the IP of those films).

 

A perpetual software license EULA claim that a person may not reverse-engineer the software is analogous to buying a toaster that has a sticker on it that says you may not open it up and repair it. As soon as that toaster is bought by somebody, it becomes their property to do with as they please.

 

 

 

Basically, because SEGA didn't write an honest, research, and law-abiding EULA, the Dawn of War III EULA is mostly garbage. It's only power is the intimidation of inexperienced, ignorant, and naive readers.

 

And that is why Microsoft, which has gone through a lot more research, legal review, and legal refining of their EULAs, for their most recent EULAs generally doesn't make any of the type of over-bearing claims that are in SEGA's EULA for Dawn of War III. The Windows 10 EULA, for all its wording, basically sums up as: This license (right to use the software IP) represents its holder's ownership of a non-reproduceable instance of the Windows 10 intellectual property. And that's all that a perpetual software license is, and that's basically all that a publisher is legally entitled to claim in an EULA. Anything beyond that is delusion of grandeur or deliberate propaganda and disinformation on the part of the publisher.

 

 

Beyond that succinct phrase, EULAs are all about faking out the customer base. And for an example of this, look at the Windows 10 EULA regarding reverse-engineering:

Quote

The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all rights (such as rights under intellectual property laws) not expressly granted in this agreement. For example, this license does not give you any right to, and you may not:

 

reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software, or attempt to do so, except and only to the extent that the foregoing restriction is (a) permitted by applicable law

 

So, Microsoft's EULA still mentions protection against reverse-engineering, but there's the caveat of "except and only to the extent that the foregoing restriction is (a) permitted by applicable law", which undoes all claims that a person may not reverse-engineer the software, because property rights apply to purchased software and a person is entitled to do as they please with their own property.

 

But simply having the words appear in there that people are not entitled to reverse-engineer the Windows 10 software has an effect on inexperienced and vulnerable readers, getting them to assume that extra powers exist behind the curtain that are above their understanding, making those readers feel as though they shouldn't try anything with Microsoft software - and that is how the urban myth of 'you don't own your software' came about in the first place, when the only software that is licensed is the IP while the instances are themselves sold and bought. And that's what most of EULAs are about: psyching people out, faking them out to ward off potential challenges and issues, and to invoke by suggestion the type of customer behaviour the publisher wishes.

 

 

As I said above, a perpetual software license sums up as:

Quote

This license (right to use the software IP) represents its holder's ownership of a non-reproduceable instance of the [software] intellectual property. And that's all that a perpetual software license is, and that's basically all that a publisher is legally entitled to claim in an EULA. Anything beyond that is delusion of grandeur or deliberate propaganda and disinformation on the part of the publisher.

 

And purchased software is an individual person's property to be done with as they please just like any purchased clothing item is.

[wasab]

5 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Snip

Totally agree. I root my Android phones and mod apps with lucky patchers. Why would anyone have the right to stop me from doing these things on MY phone? 

[Delicieuxz]

14 minutes ago, wasab said:

Totally agree. I root my Android phones and mod apps with lucky patchers. Why would anyone have the right to stop me from doing these things on MY phone? 

Although, the Android OS isn't sold via licenses of the Android IP, and so people don't own copies of it. It's free for mobile phone manufacturers and end-users to install. However, various Google services require licenses to be bought by mobile phone manufacturers for them to be installed in the Android OS.

 

But if software is free to install and use then maybe there isn't as much interest by the publisher of that software to want to impose restrictions on its usability, anyway.

[wasab]

10 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Although, the Android OS isn't sold via licenses of the Android IP, and so people don't own copies of it. It's free for mobile phone manufacturers and end-users to install. However, various Google services require licenses to be bought by mobile phone manufacturers for them to be installed in the Android OS.

 

But if software is free to install and use then maybe there isn't as much interest by the publisher of that software to want to impose restrictions on its usability, anyway.

Android is open sourced. AOSP literally stands for Android open sourced project. Rooting the devices is an inherent right gurantees by the open sourced license and so is modifying the source codes. Google stuffs are propitary but the OS is fair game. I have the right to like root the phone and adding functionality for it to wifi tether even if carrier doesn't allow it. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, wasab said:

As if companies and governments don't reverse engineer. Get your competitors products, reverse engineer to see what make them tick, then incoprate some of its design features into your own, are all common steps in R&D. Companies do it, governments do it. How else do you think Soviets come up with AK47? They done it by studying German G44 rfiles. 

And if they get caught they are just as susceptible to litigation as any individual. 

[wasab]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

And if they get caught they are just as susceptible to litigation as any individual. 

So if I swap out the engine of my Toyota, call it Toyota retrofit, and sell it in the 2nd hand market, it isn't allow? 

 

All these regulations contravene standard commerical practices. Digital goods especially is lock down by all sorts of stupid red tapes. These are just stupid. I haven't seen car companies suing 2nd hand sellers, why should software companies forced us into DRM and licenses? 

 

 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, wasab said:

So if I swap out the engine of my Toyota, call it Toyota retrofit, and sell it in the 2nd hand market, it isn't allow? 

 

All these regulations contravene standard commerical practices. Digital goods especially is lock down by all sorts of stupid red tapes. These are just stupid. I haven't seen car companies suing 2nd hand sellers, why should software companies forced us into DRM and licenses? 

 

 

 

You are confusing two different conditions of consumer law.   Software is not the same as a physical product, it is legally termed as a product (not a physical product) for the purpose of consumer law.  The Australian courts (and many others) are saying that you have the same consumer protection for software as you do for any other product because it is a consumer product (as opposed to a service).  You still do not have the right to recompile or modify the code and sell it on.  It is covered by IP and copyright law,  a car on the other hand is only covered by IP law which means you can't manufacture a copy of it and sell it, you can buy one and cut it in half then weld the front end of another car on it and sell it as what ever you want, because that does not breach copyright law or IP law.

[wasab]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You are confusing two different conditions of consumer law.   Software is not the same as a physical product, it is legally termed as a product (not a physical product) for the purpose of consumer law.  The Australian courts (and many others) are saying that you have the same consumer protection for software as you do for any other product because it is a consumer product (as opposed to a service).  You still do not have the right to recompile or modify the code and sell it on.  It is covered by IP and copyright law,  a car on the other hand is only covered by IP law which means you can't manufacture a copy of it and sell it, you can buy one and cut it in half then weld the front end of another car on it and sell it as what ever you want, because that does not breach copyright law or IP law.

So you are saying if the software I purchase is in the form of a disk or usb stick, I am free to remove the DRM, temper with its data, and resell it? 

 

Copyright falls under IP.  

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

So you are saying if the software I purchase is in the form of a disk or usb stick, I am free to remove the DRM, temper with its data, and resell it? 

 

Copyright falls under IP.  

No, absolutely not, how did you get that from my post?

 

Copyright is IP

[wasab]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, absolutely not, how did you get that from my post?

 

Copyright is IP

Because that's what you said. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, wasab said:

Because that's what you said. 

This is what I said:

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You are confusing two different conditions of consumer law.   Software is not the same as a physical product, it is legally termed as a product (not a physical product) for the purpose of consumer law.  The Australian courts (and many others) are saying that you have the same consumer protection for software as you do for any other product because it is a consumer product (as opposed to a service).  You still do not have the right to recompile or modify the code and sell it on.  It is covered by IP and copyright law,  a car on the other hand is only covered by IP law which means you can't manufacture a copy of it and sell it, you can buy one and cut it in half then weld the front end of another car on it and sell it as what ever you want, because that does not breach copyright law or IP law.

 

[wasab]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This is what I said:

 

I am talking about usb sticks and disks. They are physical.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, wasab said:

I am talking about usb sticks and disks. They are physical.

So?  Just because the software is delivered on a disk or USB drive doesn't change the laws on software. 

[Delicieuxz]

I think that this is really cool: Today I looked into Canada's stance on purchased software and found that Canada has what might be the most clear and unequivocal wording supporting software ownership that I've yet seen.

 

In the government of Canada's Goods and Services Manual, classes 1 - 34 are goods, and classes 35 - 45 are services. "Computer programs and software" are included in Class 9:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Class 9
Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; compact discs, DVDs and other digital recording media; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment, computers; computer software; fire-extinguishing apparatus.

This Class includes, in particular:
 

• apparatus and instruments for scientific research in laboratories;
• apparatus and instruments for controlling ships, such as apparatus and instruments for measuring and for transmitting orders;
• protractors;
• punched card office machines;
• all computer programs and software regardless of recording media or means of dissemination, that is, software recorded on magnetic media or downloaded from a remote computer network.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm happy to find such a clear position in Canada's laws.

As a good, software is therefore a private property that is purchased and owned by its purchasers, who then possess all normal property rights over the software they've purchased. Also, the Australian High Court's reasoning in its judgment against Valve on the basis that Australian consumer law classifies software as a good and not a service (contrary to Valve's submitted argument that it should represent a service) therefore can be assumed to also apply in Canada.

 

I've added that information into the OP's bullet points, and I've also updated the bullets points for the EU and Australian judgments declaring software as a good that people purchase and own and possess all normal property rights regarding.

[NeuesTestament]

On 7/30/2018 at 11:42 AM, TheLaserCucumber said:

We’ll isnt Microsoft’s EULA kind of illegal then?

If you buy something, you should be able to "do with it what you want", right?

But Microsoft locks keys that were installed on too many different computers. (Not at the same time btw)

Some parts of the EULA would be thrown out in court. Generally speaking, most companies don’t bother to design them in a way that they will hold up in every country.

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, NeuesTestament said:

Some parts of the EULA would be thrown out in court. Generally speaking, most companies don’t bother to design them in a way that they will hold up in every country.

Yep, they virtually mean nothing in Australia for the average consumer,  because you cannot read the EULA before you buy the product, ergo it contains conditions not advertised to the consumer before purchase.   It also gives the consumer the technical right to a refund if they disagree with the EULA upon installation and reading.   Although I don't actually know if this has been tested in court yet.