Evidence for God from Science

I started installing a certain third-person game today, and I couldn't help but to read the "E.U.L.A."(End User License Agreement), which pretty much told me I don't own anything relating to the software but the hard copy on the CD and have no right to the copy on my own computer.

The same goes for Steam, which I despise. It's not the concept of a central program I dislike, it's that I'm not considered a customer, and implied by Valve, I have no right to use my software, and they can deny me my ability to play my games over Steam if they even so much as feel like it. A bloody mess. That, and when I got The Orange Box, all it had on its CDs were a few things to tell Steam I bought "licenses" for the Orange Box games, and the stuff to install Steam with. The E.U.L.A. didn't even say anything about the games, but Steam. So basically, they're getting around the law by using disingenuous snake-oil-salesman like trickery to imply I'm buying one thing, when I'm only buying something entirely different which is only mentioned in passing on the case. And you would think I'd at least have the right to play the games after spending sixty dollars. This is all the law touches when it comes to "your" Steam games. I couldn't even bring myself to click "agree" when I had the E.U.L.A. up, so my dad, who never even reads the E.U.L.A. on any piece of software(which is real brilliant, since he works on computers for a living. Specifically when it comes to fixing software problems), clicked it. At least I'm not bound by that particular agreement.

And yeah, I always read the End User License Agreements. That's why I hardly ever buy games any more. In fact, whenever there's a contract or agreement of any kind, I read over it before signing it. No telling what people will put in the bloody things. I mean, politicians have found this out ever since they've figured out how to be elected, it's no surprise salesmen and frauds are using the trickery. And it's come in handy before. Always read over a wall of text before you sign it.

This brings me to another related topic; things you need loans for. For most people, cars and houses. That's not to say you can't eventually pay off the loans, but until you do, it's the property of the bank. I'm not that much of an expert when it comes to this sort of thing specifically, but generally speaking, if the same philosophy applied to contemporary software is applied to those sort of things, we're screwed. I mean, just imagine it. Instead of buying a car, it's still property of the company, and if you drive it somewhere they don't like, or they're feeling spiteful, they can just shut it off and leave you for dead. Now you can argue there are laws against that, but how do you resolve problems like this in court? With lawyers. And how do you get a lawyer who isn't a new guy and paid for by the government? With money. And how do you get money? By driving to work and doing your job. All the company would need to do if you live far enough away from work is shut your car, that you wouldn't own, and postpone the court for like half a year, and assuming you haven't died from starvation due to poverty, and you can even get to court (police escort?), there's no way you'd get a good lawyer unless the state just so happens to have hired you a decent lawyer, or your mannerism of speech is so spellbinding and inspiring that you win the case. And even then, for anything to get better, you'd need to get a good sum of money from the company who put you through all this, and you'd still need to find a mode of transport so that you can find a car that isn't attached to an E.U.L.A..

I mean, I'm just speaking hypothetically when it comes to cars. But let's say there's a decent form of mass transit. Well, that might fix the problem, but what if they put an E.U.L.A. on the buses and taxis? The moment before you get on, you'd have to press something on a touch-screen to agree to a five-page-long agreement, and by then, the thing will already be on its way.

Now, let's say for a moment that is never applied to mass transit. Well, then, that covers the problem of folks' cars not being theirs, because they won't buy any and use mass transit. I mean, it's almost worse in some ways, because you'll be bound to where the bus will go and not go(or taxi, or train, or aeroplane). Unless you're some crazy man who wants to hijack the thing, and be shot to death by the police three hours later. Even then, it's still not your legal property.

Just food for thought, though. But at the very least, lets talk about the problem at hand about nobody owning the video-games they buy. What do you think are the morals and implications of this? Would you say people will eventually have no property or freedom in the future? Or anything else related that entails discussion?

It's an interesting issue, most games people play online on servers mainted by the company are never owned by the consumer, the company can in many cases deny you access for no reason after you have bought it, without a refund. And yep, it's in the agreements you hit accept on when installing it.

While I can see the possibility of it being unfairly abused, it would be social suicide for a company to do it "for no reason". They have the power, sure, but using it could really end up destroying their reputation as a developer.

I've never personally seen anything in the agreements become an issue, and it's probably a good way for a company to avoid potential lawsuits. It's a potential issue, but I'm not too worried about it when I play a game.

The problem however, in when you own a piece of software is that you have the right to distribute and edit it as you please. You indeed own the media in which the software is stored, but the actual software remains the property of the company, you just have a license to use it. A software company would never restrict access to their software without a reason that is beneficial to the company. They wouldn't do it just for a laugh, but rather for circumstances which demand such action.

It seems to be a habit of human nature to trust other people with too much power over things even though we always show we can't handle it throughout human history. In my CS program, we've touched on cloud computing and the like (this is a similar topic), and I've never liked the idea. My proposition would be (and this would be hard to do, but I tend to like it):

To gain the benefits of software as a customer, allow direct downloads, but also give customers a hard copy. There should be a system created that forces people to use something hardware-oriented to validate and use their product, if the developer so chooses, so they have a level of ownership. Kind of like you need to own hardware for anything that isn't digital (I can't copy my DVD player - you have to buy your own). The logistics of this are a bit beyond me, but I have some ideas...

The other thing that could be gained from a cloud computing idea is the idea that you have a centrally located place to store all your stuff that is accessible everywhere while it handles all the backups, revisioning, security, access management, and load balancing. I think this could be achieved through home servers, removing the need for someone to depend entirely on a company to keep their stuff. Microsoft (and even some Linux distros) have -excellent- server software. No reason this can't be done now, actually.

I guess I'm a little old-fashioned, but I kind of like my property rights and the idea that I actually have ownership of something. Intellectual Property and Software are definitely unlike traditional products, though, so its a tough thing to figure out.