When Copy Protection has the Same Effect as Piracy?

[aciddose]

Same as a tenancy agreement. How is it different?

Some tenancy acts have clauses that must be part of all agreements. For example here in B.C. it is possible to give notice to your tenant if a family member needs to move in. I think the notice is a single month, no other requirement.

So essentially a landlord can kick out any tenant at any point in time for any reason, all they need is to have a family member move in after the tenant moves out. Often you'll see them use this to kick out irritating tenants. They then claim they're having to repair or refurnish the unit so their family member can move in. They they claim their family member no longer requires the accommodation and it is listed again...

[T-CM11]

Same as a tenancy agreement. How is it different?

A tenancy agreement isn't lifetime.

[Numanoid]

What Effect plugin is it that has being pirated?

[aciddose]

Same as a tenancy agreement. How is it different?

A tenancy agreement isn't lifetime.

How are you so certain? It could be.

The terms of the agreement are part of the contract itself!

So you're saying they're different because they're different? They still both contracts and while various requirements for fixed clauses may exist in both cases they still follow the same rules for contracts.

[Numanoid]

A tenancy agreement isn't lifetime.

Indeed! Such lifetime "agreements" are what led to the russian revolution

[T-CM11]

So you're saying they're different because they're different? They still both contracts and while various requirements for fixed clauses may exist in both cases they still follow the same rules for contracts.

Indeed, that's what I'm saying. It's not as simple as "if you don't own something a 100%, it's called renting". (see my post edit with the baseball bat on the previous page )

Anyway... did I have a point somewhere? Not really. It's just something I don't like, it feels a bit like planned obsolescence. Maybe it wasn't planned, but can an enduser ever tell the difference?

[T-CM11]

A tenancy agreement isn't lifetime.

Indeed! Such lifetime "agreements" are what led to the russian revolution

I think poverty of the many and prosperity of the few led to the Russian revolution. Hey, that sounds very contemporary!

[T-CM11]

How are you so certain? It could be.

The terms of the agreement are part of the contract itself!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting

Renting, also known as hiring or letting, is an agreement where a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another.

I know there are different kinds of contracts, but the temporary aspect is inherent to the concept of renting.

[computerboy1975]

The biggest wind up in this case - the copy protection has been broken in a couple of hours today!

Why does Roger pay $5000 per year for feeble protection that has not protected his product?

$5000 flat fee - then "per product" licensing for this copy protection that was a doddle to crack!

Legitimate users suffer and pay more...

In fact - a lot of copy protection slows the software down, makes it unstable, adds to the file size and everything else!

I know of people who buy original software then get the cracks because they are more stable, run faster and take up less overheads. Ridiculous but true.

[aciddose]

I know there are different kinds of contracts, but the temporary aspect is inherent to the concept of renting.

Yes but I never intended to say they're exactly the same, only that they're the same thing. A software license is also temporary, as you pointed out yourself it can not be handed down (recently discovered by those trying to pass on itunes accounts and licenses) without a clause specifying this.

I'm only wanting to say that as far as whether you actually own it or not just as you said in your previous post, no, we do not own the content we merely license it.

So only in that sense am I saying we do actually "rent" software. We do not own the software itself any more than we own a rented property along with all the terms and conditions we have for its use.

I think your point though is more the bit I tacked on the end of an older post now pages back:

...

Copyright violators, copy protection, license fees are all just hand-waving. Don't let that distract you.

If you want to focus on copy protection, perhaps the question is: Did the copy protection used in this product cause more trouble to the customers than the copyright violators? Did this result in loss of sales?

[aciddose]

I know of people who buy original software then get the cracks because they are more stable, run faster and take up less overheads. Ridiculous but true.

Not ridiculous at all!

I take this even further. I won't even use software that requires anything more than a serial/key. Some dongles are okay, as long as they're permanent and don't require special software other than a simple driver to let the dongle operate. If they require an internet connection or something to run continuously I'm not interested.

I own a couple things I regret buying because I only realized afterward that the copy protections were unacceptable to me. They're good software ruined by the copy protection.

That may be the case here also, although ultimately the issue is still simply that this is a failed product, even if the copy protection is the cause or one of the causes. A lot of successful software exists out there turning a profit with far more horrible copy protection schemes.

[T-CM11]

I own a couple things I regret buying because I only realized afterward that the copy protections were unacceptable to me. They're good software ruined by the copy protection.

And some developers even change their CP afterwards (Korg, Arturia, ...). You're forced to accept the unacceptable if you want to have their updates. Nasty!

[T-CM11]

So only in that sense am I saying we do actually "rent" software. We do not own the software itself any more than we own a rented property along with all the terms and conditions we have for its use.

I get what you're saying; I was thinking of renting in its most strictest meaning. Because nobody owns anything in life for the full 100%. Even your own body...

[Hink]

Unfortunately though Hink, you do indeed "rent" software. You don't own it any more than you own the music on the album you bought. You merely "rent" a right to use it.

That is how software/music/copyright works.

You own the hard copy, not the software itself.

Just like you own the pages of a book but not the words.

I do understand, I was just wasn't using rent in that context. In my first post I suggested that people who do not like CP may want to find another way of recording. There indeed good reasons for some to still stick with hardware. However the point there really was that it will cost you a lot more and you'll get a lot less of what you can do with software (you dont see too many bloated HD recorders) so it really isn't practical imo but also another reason for hardware can be that you do own the gear...or the bank does

[elassi]

Eventually this affair does remind us all to think about the consequences and traps lurking behind routine actions like a software purchase. For instance everyone knows that EULA's and stuff have a meaning but nobody really bothers to read them.

My conclusion is (and was before) that your money does not keep its value as soon as you spend it.

More serious: always be prepared for a total loss. This can cure GAS, too.

___
@Aciddose: worth to read your insights and thoughts about cp.