Its time for one of Davs world famous Hypothetical Scenario's

I agree. "The Product" is a legal fiction that covers the card plus the CD (which is maybe where the manuals reside).
I think you can refuse the agreement and nevertheless still use the card, e.g. in CGA, EGA and VGA modes, in VESA and with a linux open source driver.

 

I think the question here is 'what's the definition of owning something'.

If you ask, can I resell a video card I bought? Then the answer is clearly yes. Even with the software and designs attached. Most video card vendors wouldn't mind. The reason is that it's very difficult to "replicate" the entire video card.

Note that even some "physical" objects may have restrictions on resale. For example, some regulated devices require an end-user license to make sure that they are not sold to "unintended users," notably for those "dual use" devices. So if you buy a anti-ballistic missile launch system, you probably can't legally sell it to other people unless you obtained another legal end-user license. You still "own" the launch system, but you still can't sell it to any people you want. The same applies for some sensitive equipments such as high resolution infra-red sensors.

Traditionally, copyrighted materials are never "sold," but "licensed." That includes books. This is not even new, it's already the case for maybe a hundred years. That's why we have the "first-sale doctrine." However, the doctrine was established in 1908, and the world is a very different place now.

Let's imagine, for example, that Star Trek style "replicators" is common and cheap. Do you think car "manufacturers" are still going to sell you cars? Of course not. They are going to "license" their car designs for you to replicate by your own, likely with limited amount.

 

Could be, but that'd be a losing battle

Personally I think the best way is to transform design into design service. For example, car "designers" could design customized cars for everyone. So everyone can have their own customized cars. They then "sell" the design to you, so you can replicate any amount of cars of this design. The problem, however, is whether the market for customized cars is (or will be) big enough.

 

If a replicator, is common and cheap enough, to allow a user to replicate a vehicle, I bet, there won't be any need for a monetary system at all, therefore, no need for licensing of any kind.

If you want to go Star Trek, never go half way.

 

Not necessarily. Energy and materials still need money for proper distribution.

The purpose of my example is trying to explain why making analogies between "physical goods" and "software" is meaningless because they are completely different. The same applies to arguing the meaning of "buy" because that's just semantics.

 

Star Trek has seeming infinite energy, and storage of large quantities of antimatter.
Getting there is perhaps unlikely (and I'm of the opinion we'll never get through hyperspace, even though it's theoretically possible by manipulating some unobtainium on the Planck length scale)

I think there are huge security problems, not only downloading a gun or an incredibly sharp sabre : everyone and his mother could be torrenting nuclear bombs and set them off. Even "green" nuclear bombs that respect the environment, you need a small quantity of antimatter to make a pure fusion thermonuclear bomb. Or use the antimatter itself (every hyperspace capable small ship or shuttle has enough to annihilate all life on Earth)

That was essentially the automobile market before production was "taylorized", minus the replicator part. You bought a chassis and had someone build a body around it.

 

Can you "buy" a casebook from them that deals with copyright and first sale doctrine, then use it to build a legal argument to justifiy not returning the book?

 

If you have infinite of either (they're one and the same, especially in a fictional setting like star trek), there's no point in money. Money becomes pointless.

Fundamentally, money only exists to facilitate/ease trade of goods and services. If you're a tailor, you probably have little to no use for 15 bales of hay when a farmer comes to get a new suit of clothes, for example. So you barter using money.

But if there are infinite bales of hay and suits of clothes, neither of you need money.

But energy, then? Well if you have replicators, you can just replicate up a shitload of solar cell arrays, and cables to connect them to the grid. Heck, you'll be replicating your entire power grid as well. Then you'll replicate some rockets, put the solar arrays in space, beam down the power to earth.

Why not put an automated factory on the moon, to build solar arrays there. Make a band all around the waist of the satellite, to get constant coverage all year round (well, except in the event of a lunar eclipse of course... )

Assume we have wormhole-in-a-can technology, such as in Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga for example. Instant point-to-point portals that reach multiple lightyears, even dozens or hundreds of lightyears. Point your wormhole exit at any mineral-rich asteroid floating about out there (there's a bajillion gigatonnes of them, counting really really low), stretch through a digger claw and friggin mine it from the convenience of your livingroom.

Money completely ceases to have relevance with such technology at hand...

 

Eh, we may one day live in a world where energy is no longer of value, but matter is finite. You know how entropy always increases.

Of course it depends on how many people there. Not too many people and free energy = post scarcity civilization at the end of things. However I think there is a small and powerful segment of our society that will do everything they can to ensure we never get there. I mean why would you want everyone to be...equal sarcasm