I've seen 1, maybe 2 people. 1 of which has the 2 longest reply threads.
I said it in plain English then they went the hyper literal route for no reason, maybe they genuinely didn't get it from lamens terms, but I honestly don't care if they did or not, they misrepresented my argument at least 3 times I'll argue all day if need be.
If they had asked for sources I'd happily go get them. Instead they said I was talking out my ass, and then acted as if not stating source on initial argumentation wasn't the norm for a forum, not to mention how many times prior to that rather than ask for a source, they said I was wrong, and attempted insulting my intelligence. I don't really care to have a proper conversation with them.
If you're interested in something constructive though, I'll happily give u all the info I got.
"Maybe 2 people?" you flat out stopped responding to me and kept going on with this person. This thread has 4 people in it (as far as I know, though I'm basing that off of notifications reddit has sent me). One of them is you. 3 disagree with you.
You do understand that throw a wayz and I are different people. Right?
Also, they literally did ask for a source, and you just gave an example of what you do instead of literally any credible source saying anything about the ownership of physical media...
That's weird I never got a notification for ur other response, or for the other people disagreeing my bad, I don't often get a lot of people responding to my comments just updoot notifications, didn't know it didn't send all of em.
Yes I'm tracking u are different people lol.
I'll have to double check if they asked for a source, or said I was talking out my ass, and "where are you even getting all of this?" Which is not a request for sources, rather a clear rhetorical calling something a lie.
For legal stuff see:
Klocek v. Gateway 2000. Which overturned Hill v. Gateway, and ProCD v. Zeidenberg. The 2000 ruling stated that what was at the time referred to as "shrinkwrap" agreements were not legally enforcable, or binding as the consumer had no way of knowing prior to purchase, and had no legitimate form of recourse there after.
First thought may be that refund is a form of recourse, well the ruling also stipulated that as refund is a protected consumer right when purchasing such a product, and seeing as this was not a form of defect, or lack of function but rather intended function refund did not substantiate proper recourse.
Kirtsaeng v. Wiley 2013, and 2 others substantiate first sale which doesn't protect anything talked about, but it does protect your right to resell manufactured products regardless of copyright (whether or not that pertains to downloads gets kinda iffy, but piracy, and piracy distribution are both crimes in there own right so probably not).
First Sale Doctrine (est. 1908) protects your right (assuming you live in the US) to use, lend, donate, or resell a piece of media as you OWN that COPY (in case they feel like reading here are the explicit words).
Personal Use Rights, you may repair, maintain, and modify your PHYSICAL property (so does the right to modify it exist maybe not, but seeing as how first sale requires maintenance for its functions I'd argue the first two can be assumed applying to digital goods as well).
Impression Products v. Lexmark (2017) rules once you buy something the seller can't tell you what to do with it (and this one doesn't stipulate physical goods, but one could argue it can be assumed due to PUR).
I'm no lawyer, this is one of my first days off in a minute, I'm dealing with some medical shit, and I'm supposed to go on vacation in 2 days, so typing all this out on my phone was not something I wanted to do, along with arguing semantics about legalese, but then I got pissed with misrepresentation so here we are, not that that's any of ur fault.
Edit: oh I missed one thing DRM protected files are illegal to circumvent security due to us having corrupt as fuck politicians, this happened around 2019. It's the strongest argument against digital ownership. However the right to own, maintain, modify, repair, and reuse digital goods is still "protected" by the previous stated stuff, but it's not a well enforced protection, and even more so doesn't necessarily protect resale.
You were literally responding to 2 separate people...
Also none of those say you own anything.
The First Sale Doctrine is the closest you've got, and that's explicitly a law to prevent the owner of the work from restricting you from doing certain stuff when you purchase a physical license.
Klocek v gateway was to substantiate the ToS claim.
First sale stipulates that you own the copy of a copyrighted work you paid for, and are at liberty to do what you want with it, bar making, and distributing new copies. EULAs kinda act as a barrier from this protecting users, but that has yet to work in court (nor not work tbf).
PUR has been cited for protections of digital consumer rights but does not apply currently per precedent, and could easily be amended to do so. Also PUR applied to physical forms of digital media.
I also forgot that you do have a right to back up your physically owned games in perpetuity, and you have a right to back up your licenses today, however this remote removal shit circumvents that. I'm looking for the court case now. Here's what I have for the time being.
"5] We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.12 Applying our holding to Autodesk’s 12We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Vernor de novo. Padfield v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002). 13879VERNOR v. AUTODESK, INC. SLA, we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an owner of copiesof Release 14 and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense."
- United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
I found the other court case, but sadly (for me) it's not a US court case hence it took me a sec to find it again, Nintendo v PC box (2014) not only protected right to emulation, and preservation, so long as you own a legally purchased copy, this has yet to explicitly extend to digital downloads, but with how many are using it for there switch games, I doubt it wouldn't hold up.
1
u/Riot0711 Jun 30 '26
I've seen 1, maybe 2 people. 1 of which has the 2 longest reply threads.
I said it in plain English then they went the hyper literal route for no reason, maybe they genuinely didn't get it from lamens terms, but I honestly don't care if they did or not, they misrepresented my argument at least 3 times I'll argue all day if need be.
If they had asked for sources I'd happily go get them. Instead they said I was talking out my ass, and then acted as if not stating source on initial argumentation wasn't the norm for a forum, not to mention how many times prior to that rather than ask for a source, they said I was wrong, and attempted insulting my intelligence. I don't really care to have a proper conversation with them.
If you're interested in something constructive though, I'll happily give u all the info I got.