Re:The devil is in the details (Score 1)

Well, as long as you knew, or should reasonably have known, that such a contract was involved in the purchase, of certianly I'm fine with it. I, of course, wouldn't buy a TV like that. And I'd hope enough other people would behave like me and there'd be companies that want our business.

And, yes, agree that in some cases, EULAs aren't such that one can reasonably know what they are before the purchase has been made - and I'm all for legislation that requires EULAs be made available before the purchase is made, and for returning the product for a full refund otherwise.

But I think one of the issues at play here is that there are a number of 'things' that people are 'used to buying', like music and software, and now some vendors are trying to change it from 'buying' to 'licensing'. Of course, as a consumer, I'd much rather own it than license it. And, yes, I'm a little worried that all music is going to turn in to a license deal, and that's going to make it harder for me to do with my songs what I want to.

But are we really going to tell the marketplace that two agents cannot enter in to an informed and consensual licensing contract? That a small software company can't write a contract with a large commercial entity to license some itellectual property to them in a very limited manner? It seems ludicrous to suggest that such behaviour should be outlawed.

And if not, why not let a musician enter in to a licensing deal with some set of listeners? Not all musicians need to do that. But if Joe Guitar player decides that's the business he wants to engage in, and Sally Afficionado is willing to sign Joe's contract, who are we to tell them they can't do that? We had no right to Joe's music in the first place.

So let Joe and Sally do their thing, and we'll do our thing with musicians or developers that are willing to sell or license their work-product to us on better terms. It's a big world out there, and there's room for all sorts of business models.