> On Dec 31, 2007 11:52 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I doubt very much if it is enforceable.
> >
> > http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4326/camera-test-fujifilm-finepix-is-1-a-narrowly-defined-user-licensing-agreement-page2.html
Waitaminute ... since when do we _license_ (essentially lease) cameras
instead of _buying_ them? Cameras are _hardware_, right?
(Yeah, I know that the notion of renting a camera does exist, but does
the existence of an End User _License_ Agreement imply that Fuji will
not, in fact _sell_ this camera to anyone? Most of us own our gear,
right?)
Sheesh -- bad enough that we let them get away with not-selling us
most of the software we 'license' (that is, you don't technically
buy the software or even buy a copy of it; you buy a license to use
the software). This is [expletiving] silly.
Then again, if covenants on land are enforceable ... <<shudder>>
-- Glenn
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
