Ethos Pathos Logos

To Own or To Be Owned

Purchasing a physical book versus a digital copy, what differentiate these two items? In Christopher Groskopf’s article, “True or false: If it’s on your phone, and you paid for it, you own it” argues that digital owners’ rights have been limited by the Terms of Service(TOS) that they signed before purchasing the material. The digital owners have become mere users due to the TOS. This article will be analysed using Aristotle’s rhetoric arguments which are logos, pathos and ethos.

Firstly, the author uses logos, which is reasoning to convey his argument. The TOS which the buyers must sign before purchasing and using the item are filled with subtle details that limit the buyer’s rights. The buyers are unaware of the limitation

They have unintentionally given up their ownership due to an agreement of TOS that they sign. He provides an example of buyers of John Deere tractors. Although the tractors are physically owned by the buyers, the software within is still owned by the company due to the contract. He states that “Owners of John Deere tractors discovered that they can’t legally fix their own equipment because according to the company, the buyers only acquires “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle””. This results in being unable to use 3rd party software to diagnose the tractor’s problem rather, the buyers are obligated to see the pricier company’s mechanics. Another example provided by Groskopf’s is that of a vibrator, WeVibe, sending data back to the manufacturer without the buyers’ consent. He provides a rebuttal to the argument of ownership by stating “If buyers of the device owned the software, they could perhaps modify it to prevent this tracking, but, of course, they didn’t and the contract forbids tampering with it.” This concludes Groskopf’s argument reasoned with pathos that the TOS has limited the rights of