Constructed from components !
I read many of the above comments with interest and some with amusement. If its a contract, then I am privy to discuss, amend and agree each and every term PRIOR to signing. Also, in order to become a legal contract in the UK, a 'contract' much be fair to both parties and must not remove an otherwise legal right from either party, although it may be legal to 'modify' the circumstances under which such a legal right might apply to particular instances within the contract.
As for the arguments about cars being made from parts and software being 'intangible', well sorry guys, but software is constructed from the parts called INSTRUCTIONS which are inherent within the microprocessor which the software is written to run on. You could liken that to an electronic circuit made from components. The components can be assembled and arranged in ways which allow electronic circuits to perform quite disparate functions, and yet be assembled from standard components. The same can be said of software. The commands are the 'standard components' and they are built into the microprocessor on which the software is designed to run.
If I hear a piece of music, I can pick up my guitar and play the tune by ear. I can change it a bit to arrange my own version, and people still recognise it and know that I am only playing it, not claiming ownership of the original music. If I decide to buy the sheet music for the piece, then I own the paper, not the tune -- which remains the COPYRIGHT of the author. I feel free to sell the paper when I am finished with it, although from the piles of music in my place, you can see that I almost never part with music once it is in my possession. I think this also applies to books. We own the paper, not the copyright. We can tear out pages if we want -- or scribble notes over it. If the story (or technical content, in the case of a textbook) is crap, I don't seem to have any right to return it for a refund. I can if the printing is smudged or the paper not properly trimmed, though. I don't have a right to copy any of it without permission -- rightly so, its copyright !
Arguments about onward sale of second-hand copies denying the writer further income are correct. Just as they are for a second-hand washing machine, or dare I say, a second-hand wife !! .... and a second-hand --- third-hand --- tenth-hand car !!
I also think that some of the arguments about the originator being 'denied' income because of second-hand sales are actually incorrect. You buy a second-hand version for less than a new version. You find that its useful to you, so you will go back and buy a newer NEW version at a later date. I think those arguments also kind of deny the existence of libraries as places to keep books, lend books, refer to books you don't want to buy (can't afford to buy). People still write books and those who right good books make a great deal of money ! One thing I do notice is that a good book and a crap book don't vary in price too much, unlike software !!
So, software!! Companies like Commodore tried to sell computers in the 70s with a ninety day guarantee. It was companies like that who brought into being the legislation called the Sale of Goods Act in the UK. Perhaps we could start by asking, why do people make illegal copies of software instead of buying it. Well, maybe you are old enough to remember an advert for a piece of software called 'The Last One' sold to run on the Commodore PET computer. This claimed to be the last piece of software you would ever need to buy, because it wrote software to do whatever you wanted !! Of course, it didn't ! The software companies make such outrageous claims about what their software does, that it becomes logical to want that confirmed prior to purchase. When you buy it, you come across the 'agreement' in which they deny that it does anything at all and then attempt to take away any and every right they think you might otherwise have. When all this started, lawyers made a lot of money trying to argue various cases about software being different from being able to be covered by COPYRIGHT LAWS alone. So the industry brought a lot onto its own head. Of course, selling a used copy of a piece of software does not contribute to piracy, if anything it has a tendency to MINIMISE piracy by making the item available at a more affordable price. When I can, I borrow or copy a piece of software so that I can try it before I buy it. If it does what I want, then I go and buy it. If it doesn't, then I wipe it from my syatem and return the copy to where I borrowed it from, or shred the CD. I don't see that as piracy, but I bet MS would because they see little pirates hiding under every leaf in the forrest --- I feel so sorry for their poor quality of life brought about by their perception of the dishonesty of all around them, or is it just that they think everyone thinks like they do !!! ?
If you behave like shite, you WILL be perceived as shite and you WILL be flushed down the pan !!