I think that's misleading then, because when I buy a GPU, they make me believe I own it, when, apparently, in reality I don't.

I don't think this way of selling (or as you say renting) stuff should be considered legal.

I think your idea is agreeable but if we did treat hardware this way it changes almost everything. Apple/Nintendo/Sony/etc would all be required to give users root access to the software and remove their ToS.

And then it get even more complex when you get in to online services. Game consoles are going online only next gen. If you buy the ps5 digital edition and you mod your OS and sony bans you from their servers, your console is now a brick. But in many cases its fair to be banned such as banning cheaters.

You own it, and can talk to it the same way you can talk to a brick, lol :D

(I avoid nvidia whenever possible)

What's the point of that? We do the same thing in software all the time. You get basic functionality for one price, and pay for a key to unlock extra features. Why should hardware be any different? So the law would somehow require any feature on a hardware product to have some physical difference and not be purely a software limitation? What is the advantage of that? Just increases cost to the manufacturer (which will get passed down), then also precludes any possibility of upgrades by purchasing a software patch.

It should be clearly communicated and never be misleading.

What's misleading? You get the functionality you pay for. The fact that software controls that is an implementation detail.

As mr_toad says, the software is essentially rented.

This means I'm not buying but renting, which is not how it is advertised.

> I think that's misleading then, because when I buy a GPU, they make me believe I own it, when, apparently, in reality I don't.

If you buy a GPU you own it and the copy of the software it came with. You are free to use that combination as you choose, forever.

It’s not renting because you don’t have to pay rent to continue to use it. There may be software license restrictions, typically against modifying or reverse-engineering the software, However, it is an error to say that those license restrictions convert your ownership into anything like a rental agreement.

Some digital activists say that we don’t really own the devices that we buy because of license restrictions or restricted device firmware. It’s hyperbole. We do own our devices and the copies of the software they came with, even if they came with artificial limitations.

Lets test this idea of ownership: My phone auto-updates, and the manufacturer prevents me from reverting updates. One update has removed my ability to record my calls.

Does that sound like ownership? Can BMW employee pop over to your garage one day remove some bits of the car he thinks you shouldn't have any more?

The problem of features being changed or removed by a software update is real and the owner can be harmed, as you were. As the owner, however, if you are harmed in that way then you may have a claim against the manufacturer. For example, in a recent class action case by PlayStation 3 owners against Sony over the removal of the Linux OS feature, the court seemed to agree that owners were entitled to damages because Sony ended up paying millions of dollars to class members in a settlement. If you or the PlayStation 3 owners were not owners, then you wouldn’t have a good claim.

By the sounds of it playstation 'owners' were paid compensation, but could not get the Linux feature back, in other words they were not made whole. They don't control what is happening to their properly, and without Sony's agreement they cannot repair damage done by sony to it.

That does not sound like ownership to me - again, think back to car ownership. Firstly tampering with your car would have been criminal damage.

Secondly, BMW does not get a say in how you use your car. They can't stop you going over the speed limit. You could get your car fixed without having to involve BMW or going to court to force their hand.

In my view this Sony case looks like compensation for breach of a lease-like contract.

> By the sounds of it playstation 'owners' were paid compensation, but could not get the Linux feature back, in other words they were not made whole.

Members of the class could opt out of the settlement and sue Sony individually. A court could theoretically enjoin Sony to restore the feature for those individual plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs would have to show that monetary damages would be insufficient. Generally courts don’t like to force defendants to do things when paying money would be an acceptable outcome.

> In my view this Sony case looks like compensation for breach of a lease-like contract.

I haven’t read the complaint in that case but the plaintiffs probably alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. So, yes, possibly a breach of contract claim but not a lease. (Note: A lease is a specific form of contract in which a lessor transfers possession of property to a lessee, but retains a future interest in the property after the contract term ends.)

Your idea of ownership is way too primitive and doesn't reflect reality.

You do NOT own the software that comes with your GPU!

Ownership implies the ability to transfer, modify, and resell, none of which are within the rights granted by the license of said software.

It's not "rental" either - it's licensing. You don't have to become a lawyer, but knowing and understanding the difference between proprietorship (ownership) and possession is a good start. Same goes for renting vs. licensing vs. ownership.

TL;DR you do not have ownership of any software that came with any device you bought and it's not hyperbole at all.

> You do NOT own the software that comes with your GPU!

When you purchase a consumer GPU that comes with software, you acquire the GPU, the copy of the software it came with, and a license to use the software subject to particular terms and conditions. That is what you own, no more, no less.

You do own it. And you're free to use the open source drivers if you want.

> When you “buy” software, you are actually entering into a lease contract to use the software

This is inaccurate, at least as to purchases software. A license is not a contract because the licensee is not required to do anything. A license can have conditions (restriction), but not covenants (promises to do something). A license basically functions as a defense against a claim of infringement.

Note: For purchased software there is a contract for the sale of the software subject to the license, but that shouldn’t be confused with the license itself.

> For purchased software there is a contract for the sale of the software subject to the license, but that shouldn’t be confused with the license itself.

That's simply not true. You are indeed making a contract for the sale of the license itself. Otherwise subscription models wouldn't work and would even be legally allowed to share and resell the software, which you aren't (i.e. just because it's possible to resell an acquired license while keeping a working copy, doesn't make it legal to do so).

I agree with you. My earlier point was that a license is not a contract, and shouldn’t be confused with one. My note at the end was that there is also a contract when you acquire a license through a purchase. The contract is typically of the form “you pay us money, we give you license”. That contract too shouldn't be confused with the license acquired.

As you correctly point out, one who sells his only license to a piece of software no longer has a license. If he kept a copy of the software and continues to use it, he is committing an act of infringement. That is the same whether the license is for a term (subscription) or perpetual.