So if you have the right to modify the software in a tractor, doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The fact that the software we're discussing here is installed on a tractor rather than a PC shouldn't make much of a difference?
> doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well?
The DMCA should not pertain to you flipping bits into your own copy of Windows to modify it's functionality. You can do that, and if it's a violation of the license, Microsoft can sue you. It's an entirely civil issue with the burden of proof on MS.
The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA criminalize any alteration of a device with the purported objective of protecting copyright. So now the state not only defends copyright, but the technical measures themselves, even if the real objective of the manufacturer is simply to be anticompetitive and incompatible. It's a massive privatization of criminal law in ad-hoc, unwritten form: "it's illegal to disable anything manufacturers claim defends copyright".
Of course I should be allowed to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as long as I am not redistributing the modified software. I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it? End User License Agreements be damned.
> I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on
Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the type of contract you made.
Moreover, you didn't pay for Windows; you paid for a license of Windows. This license specifically says what you are and what you are not allowed to do with the software, and among others, tinkering with is is not part of what you are allowed to do.
Let's not play dumb. Of course you got an EULA with your software, the point is the legitimacy of the EULA from a legal and jurisprudential point. Same holds for the copyright law.
I mean, there is obviously a law stating that you cannot do this or that because it violates copyright. This implies that you as a citizen might do something illegal as close yourself in your room, do some magic and then get out and forget about it, although what you did has no influence on the world whatsoever. That is a problem.
Now, if we want to be precise there is actually a clear definition of what you own, and in fact you probably do not own the copy of Windows running on your PC. Still it is possible that you own that PC, and its hard drives and other stuff, so when we say that you do not own the software but just a license to use it we are giving credit to stuff like this:
To sum up, sure you might not have the right to hack your properties, but that's caused by a set of laws defending a power inbalance between consumers and producers. I believe that claiming that any sort of "hacking your stuff" should be prohibited because the law says so is an example of irrational justificationism if not supported by further arguments, still I'd like to hear about the reasons why we need copyright law as is.
That's the thing though, you don't own it, you've been granted the right to use it. Of course I'm biased because I'm a proponent of Libre software, but that problem has been described since rms started his crusade: you don't own a software the same way you own a chair, so the license you have must give you the rights to effectively do whatever you want with (and to) it.
Those EULA are dumb, but you don't have to agree with them. In many cases there will be no alternative, for sure. However you can't accept an EULA and subsequently say "this EULA sucks, I don't have to follow it".
Well gosh, I don't remember signing a contract, just clicked some button to make that stupid wall of text go away so I could use the software after I already paid for it.
I never met a human (excluding lawyers) who actually has read through a single EULA, and I doubt most of them would be valid if actually tested in court, at least outside the US.
It is pretty absurd when you go to use your Facebook app or whatever and are presented with a 73-page wall of text that you are expected to read and understand before going on to use the app. If those things are legally enforceable, then something is definitely broken.
Edit: Often it's not even at purchase. There are numerous apps that will do this every time they change their terms. And they don't show you a change list either. It's the whole 50-150 pages. No reasonable person would actually read it.
I'd even say that a license clause that forbids users to modify the software is really not well-defined. Modification of what is actually forbidden? I have no access to the source code (assuming closed-source software). I have only binaries. Can I replace the first byte with 0x00? The second one? What if I accidentally overwrite the whole file with 0x00s? What if I truncate it? Can I start the software and modify it at runtime? Can I modify the dynamic libraries (or even the OS) to alter the software? What if a virus infects the binary?
It'd be great if anyone could point to interesting resources on this issue. It seems to be an intriguing intersection of law and economics.
and what's the problem with this? License the software as-is and with no re-distribution rights, but grant rights to modify and extend the software as you see fit. If you want to sell your modifications, so be it, but you can't sell the original software, just your mods. The same way as software developers don't have the right to give away Windows software with our code, we just have the right to sell our enhancements... so in effect (if you remove all the semantics and legal claptrap), we do have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling, otherwise hundreds of thousands of software engineers would be out of a job.
