this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
674 points (99.1% liked)
memes
21774 readers
3390 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree, but that's not how I'd imagine the courts would see it? If the EULA says that you don't own the computer program, you're just paying for a license to use it, then you're not really "the owner of a copy of a computer program"...
It doesn't matter what the EULA says when you never agreed to it in the first place because it failed to meet the basic requirements of a contract.
In what way would the EULA/contract be illegal/invalid? The US has a pretty broad freedom of contract. No one has forced you to buy that licensed computer program. You don't need it to survive. You're not discriminated against by not being allowed to buy the software instead of a license.
Understand I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agree that such contracts are morally corrupt, but I'm not aware of anything that'd make them illegal. Only by being truthful regarding the current laws is how we can make change.