You don't have to buy into a law for it to exist and be enforced.

And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income.

I'm pretty sure if first sale doctrine applied to software, almost nothing would change. We're not talking about getting rid of copyright, just the idea that this thing that acts almost exactly like a purchase is not 'really' a purchase.

> And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income.

So what you’re saying is that just because his salary depends upon his not understanding the arguments for this to be “legal bs”, he therefore should voluntarily choose to abstain from understanding them? Upton Sinclair would turn in his grave.

And slave owners are the ones who allowed slaves to eat. That's not an argument that slaves should not fight for their freedom.

Your income is physically earned, not 'allowed' to you by insidious and underhanded legal means.

Comparing a EULA or software ownership to slavery is such an excellent example of technologists being out of touch with the rest of humanity.

Presumably you're aware that comparing one thing to another does not imply that the GP thinks they are anywhere near equivalent. The common meaning of the word "comparable" is not "can be compared", but "roughly equivalent". You are acting as though GP considers them comparable-in-the-second-sense; GP's post actually claims them to be comparable-in-the-first-sense.

A Tesla is not forced upon you, however. If you're wary of the terms, do not buy a Tesla car.

Software has, by the way, always* been this way. I've been "buying software" for twenty years and I've never actually not gotten a license with it rather than the software itself, with all ownership rights conferred to me.

*within the scope of my knowledge and experience