Good article, but you make 'The big LICENSE mistake' when you state, "You can argue that they're not really buying the content, they're just buying licenses for that content, but that argument, while technically legal, is facile and doesn't take into account how real human beings think."

I really do not understand why many users think they are buying a license when they buy a DVD etc. Unless you...
1) see the contract before you give over your money
2) agree to the contract at the point you give over you money
3) and don't have access to the product UNTIL both 1 & 2 are complete...
...THEN THERE IS NO LICENSE

A license is like every other contract, and is bound by the facets of contract law. You OWN the content when you go to the store and buy it. If you buy a printed copy of 'The New Yorker'... it's yours, you bought it and you own it. If you buy a digital copy of an archive of 'The New Yorker'... it's yours, you bought it and you own it. It really is that simple.

Once you own the product, you have all the benefits associated with private property. When you buy a car, you own it. You are prohibited from using it as a get-away vehicle if you rob a bank. When you buy a gun, you are prohibited from shooting it in most locations, (even if you are not aiming it at another living creature.)

With copyrighted material you specifically cannot reproduce and publish it. Just because it has that string attached to it's ownership (like the car & gun) it does not take away from the LEGAL FACT that you DO OWN IT.

The copyrights themselves that belong to authors who sell them to publishers, etc. are not the sole rights to the content, copyrights are the sole rights to DISTRIBUTE the content. Owning the copyright on a work means you have the sole monopoly rights in the market of selling copies of that work.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/390/33202#33202