Intellectual Theft and Invasion of Privacy Issues

csvr is right,when you use technology,whether software Or hardware,you void your right to privacy,but some people refuse to accept it,its called arrogance,wether its emotional or intellectual.

no actually, I wasn't avoiding what your saying. Now, I am about to put all that to rest. The point of the creation of the product is to sell the product to the consumer to purchase which gives ownership to the consumer on the product purchased based on the fact the actually brand and design of the product is not the consumers to replicate and sell.

Otherwise, what is the point of owning a product that a consumer can't own. Laptops/computers are similar in buying vehicles as you buy them to own not to lease, unless you choose that option. Case closed.

Facts don't really care about your opinion much please see my previous post.

Not entirely, but I do know what you mean. I think the phrase you intend to use is "expectation of privacy."
The "privacy" level enforced by a product is typically defined explained, sometimes scantily, during purchasing, most often before activation. For products like virus scan tools and BattlEye, the privacy level is not only defined by the operation of the product, but limited by the product's trade secrets. In any case, the said acknowledgement establishes an argeement between the user and the provider, and a middling privacy whose violation can lead to trust and legal issues.

You either don't understand how current software licensing works or you're outright ignoring it in hopes that your percepton in regards to how the world works is stronger. You keep talking about hardware and physical components - laptops, cameras, houses, etc.. The applicable product is intangible and may as well count as SaaS, a thing that has limited existence when not given external support from some outside force (the company). It doesn't matter whether you own the PlanetSide 2 client if there's no server to play on. Your avatar is a provided service contract. Your avatar's firearms are a provided service contract.

Pot calling the kettle.

And you missed my point entirely, I never said did not acknowledge there is a contract between user and the company in the first place. I am challenging the contract entirely all together, just because it is a company which designed a contract, does that mean you would just go along with the contract regardless of privacy concerns in your own personal items. I bet not. I am not trying to make any one case stronger than the other. i simply put the simple rules of transaction down in place.

Products are designed to be owned by the customer. The product is created and designed by the company, which owns the rights to that designed product. The customer can own the product without having created it. Common sense our own economy is based on that you can own a phone, provided contract, and even then if privacy is a issue with people there will be another solution. However, the simple point is you dont have to own the design of a product to own a product. That is dumb in and of itself, and doesn't function in cause and effect. Complication comes in where there are levels of actions and reaction that happen on different levels. I understand perfectly well how licensing works, thanks since I have my own company licensing :/