By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NJ5 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
NJ5 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
I don't like this ruling, bad for property rights.



100% serious.

Before you buy something, it is first the producer's property. If they want to put on obligations (such as not being able to resell) that you agree to, then the producer should be able to enforce those obligations. If you don't agree to those obligations, don't continue with the transaction. You have no right to play games, but that have property rights.


But after you buy something, it is your property and no one has any business restricting your property rights. That is the definition of buying as far as I know (and the court seems to agree).

so by your definition leasing a car should be illegal...

i get it, if you truely own something you should own it. if a car cost ~$10,000 to make and you pay them ~$15,000 than sure the car is yours in its entirely to do with as you please.  if you pay ~$300 upfront than you need to live within the boundaries of the terms of your agreement and the original manufacture should have some say in how and what you can do with that property.

when you buy a game you are putting down ~$60 which is a hell of a lot less than the ~20M it took to create the game.  i kind of think is is unfair to say you fully own that software.  you didn't put down the kind of money needed to truely own it.

i dunno, i can't say i completely disagree that end users should be able to transfer licenses.  but there also need to be some protection to businesses to prevent abuse too.  if not then our economy if fucked in that there will be no investment where there is no ability to make money means there is not jobs.

 

anywho, probably doesn't mean much anyways.  cloud/software as a service is just around the corner.  by the time the details of the ruling if determined the whole issue will be gone.  you simply won't have the ability to buy software ever again.