This is the future that capitalists want. When you can no longer afford components because they hoarded them all, you will have to rent computers from their cloud. Dont worry? It’s all real and legal because it’s justified by the humungous next step in humanity known as AI which was so important that we had to buy up all the computing resources. It’s so good guys it’s important that none of you be able buy any computers that you can use without the supervision of the AI cloud services. Trust us.
And soon thereafter we see articles of corporations freaking out customers went back to bills on paper in the mail, written cheques, cash deposits and lots of manpower to process everything manually.
Impossible! Everyone has a smartphone with which to download The App:tm: to handle that. The only people who don’t have smartphones are actual criminals. There are senators completely ready to endorse this line of thought! Too poor? Nonsense, you’re a criminal. Straight to jail.
This is the “theory” by which publishers try to justify the validity of EULAs (they argue: “buying the thing isn’t enough; you need to agree to this to be able to actually use it”).
But, fun fact: copyright law has a specific carve-out for that incidental copy, 17 USC §117 (a) (1), which means EULAs offer no ‘consideration’ and are therefore bunk.
I agree, but that’s not how I’d imagine the courts would see it? If the EULA says that you don’t own the computer program, you’re just paying for a license to use it, then you’re not really “the owner of a copy of a computer program”…
In what way would the EULA/contract be illegal/invalid? The US has a pretty broad freedom of contract. No one has forced you to buy that licensed computer program. You don’t need it to survive. You’re not discriminated against by not being allowed to buy the software instead of a license.
Understand I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I agree that such contracts are morally corrupt, but I’m not aware of anything that’d make them illegal. Only by being truthful regarding the current laws is how we can make change.
Contracts require four elements in order to be valid: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. EULAs fail at multiple of these:
As I already said, they offer no “consideration” because you already have the right to do the thing they purport to give you permission to do (i.e., make the incidental copy necessary to run the game).
They lack “acceptance” and “intent” because they are contracts of adhesion (sprung on you after the sale transaction is complete and you already own the copy of the software), and clicking through them is nothing but a mechanical act necessary to use your property (which, again, you already have the right to do, by definition of “property!”) with no legal intent behind it. And if you have no intent, how the fuck can merely doing a thing you’re being forced to do constitute “acceptance?” It is, simply, complete bullshit.
If it were presented at the time of sale and you had to agree before the money was exchanged maybe it’d be different, but that’s not how they do things. And even then, it would still fail at “consideration” unless they offer you something above and beyond the right to use your property, which I cannot emphasize enough, you already have.
(By the way, since it sometimes comes up as a “gotcha” rebuttal attempt: no, Free Software licenses are not EULAs, and that’s why they are valid while EULAs are not. You are not required to “agree” to the GPL etc. merely to use the software; it only kicks in when you want to do something, like modification or redistribution, that would otherwise be copyright infringement. It grants you those new privileges in exchange for accepting its terms, and that consideration is what makes it valid.)
Every time you load an app into memory you are making a copy and therefore you are a criminal.
That’s your fault for having your own RAM on your own device instead of renting VRAM from cloud services!
(/s, in case anyone didn’t pick up on it…)
This is the future that capitalists want. When you can no longer afford components because they hoarded them all, you will have to rent computers from their cloud. Dont worry? It’s all real and legal because it’s justified by the humungous next step in humanity known as AI which was so important that we had to buy up all the computing resources. It’s so good guys it’s important that none of you be able buy any computers that you can use without the supervision of the AI cloud services. Trust us.
Streaming high performance applications such as games is now a public health concern as local compute contributes to heat generation in urban areas.
Public fountains and cooling centers will be decommissioned and a daytime water use ban will be in effect to ensure essential data services stability.
Due to extreme heat citizens are urged to avoid outdoor activity during daylight hours.
Don’t worry soon no one will be able to afford their own memory and then piracy will be solved forever!
And soon thereafter we see articles of corporations freaking out customers went back to bills on paper in the mail, written cheques, cash deposits and lots of manpower to process everything manually.
Impossible! Everyone has a smartphone with which to download The App:tm: to handle that. The only people who don’t have smartphones are actual criminals. There are senators completely ready to endorse this line of thought! Too poor? Nonsense, you’re a criminal. Straight to jail.
Woah, slow down there pal. Don’t cha know, seeing articles makes a copy in your brain which is piracy.
YoU wOuLdN’t DoWnLoAd A kErNeL
That would make a nice shirt
This is the “theory” by which publishers try to justify the validity of EULAs (they argue: “buying the thing isn’t enough; you need to agree to this to be able to actually use it”).
But, fun fact: copyright law has a specific carve-out for that incidental copy, 17 USC §117 (a) (1), which means EULAs offer no ‘consideration’ and are therefore bunk.
I agree, but that’s not how I’d imagine the courts would see it? If the EULA says that you don’t own the computer program, you’re just paying for a license to use it, then you’re not really “the owner of a copy of a computer program”…
It doesn’t matter what the EULA says when you never agreed to it in the first place because it failed to meet the basic requirements of a contract.
In what way would the EULA/contract be illegal/invalid? The US has a pretty broad freedom of contract. No one has forced you to buy that licensed computer program. You don’t need it to survive. You’re not discriminated against by not being allowed to buy the software instead of a license.
Understand I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I agree that such contracts are morally corrupt, but I’m not aware of anything that’d make them illegal. Only by being truthful regarding the current laws is how we can make change.
Contracts require four elements in order to be valid: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. EULAs fail at multiple of these:
If it were presented at the time of sale and you had to agree before the money was exchanged maybe it’d be different, but that’s not how they do things. And even then, it would still fail at “consideration” unless they offer you something above and beyond the right to use your property, which I cannot emphasize enough, you already have.
(By the way, since it sometimes comes up as a “gotcha” rebuttal attempt: no, Free Software licenses are not EULAs, and that’s why they are valid while EULAs are not. You are not required to “agree” to the GPL etc. merely to use the software; it only kicks in when you want to do something, like modification or redistribution, that would otherwise be copyright infringement. It grants you those new privileges in exchange for accepting its terms, and that consideration is what makes it valid.)
I’m an accomplice to RAM!
POLICE!!! PUT DOWN THAT COMPUTER AND NOBODY NEEDS TO GET HURT!!!
HE’S COMING RIGHT FOR US! SIR PUT DOWN THE COMPUTER… SIR… I AM AUTHORIZED TO USE LETHAL FORCE…
i’m not hhhhoollng a ccccomputer…