No, that’s literally how software/media has always worked…
If you “own” code, then you can copy, distribute, and profit off of it 100% legally.
That’s why software/media you “buy” is a license for personal use.
That’s the entire point of the issue…
Did you think Blockbuster or any other rental store could buy a copy from Walmart and rent it out? Those were different licenses and the rental stores paid a shit ton more for their copies to be able to rent them.
Because it’s never been about the physical media, but the license attached to it that determines fair usage
Did you think Blockbuster or any other rental store could buy a copy from Walmart and rent it out? Those were different licenses and the rental stores paid a shit ton more for their copies to be able to rent them.
It hasn’t always worked the way it does today. I know you buy a “license”. But when you bought that cd rom or floppy or dvd or whatever physical media, you didn’t have to do anything else to make it work. That copy ALWAYS worked, and you could sell it when you no longer needed it. Or you could let your friend borrow it.
“Fair usage” doesn’t really work the way it used to.
My point is that those producing media should not be able to sell you something that you are not allowed to control to some extent, and use at your disposal.
Did you think Blockbuster or any other rental store could buy a copy from Walmart and rent it out?
YES! That’s how it fucking worked! For the exact same reason libraries can just buy a book, and then lend it out, because they fucking own it. That’s what the money was for!
Rental chains only developed contractual relationships with movie studios because it’s otherwise kind of difficult to buy five thousand copies of one tape. Studios sued, and lost, and came back with a truce.
The first sale doctrine is over a century old. Every medium has tried insisting it’s special, and been slapped down as just another product. Software has been long awaiting that slap. Their excuses aren’t anything new. Your rights have not changed.
Straight up wrong. There’s an exception to copyright for educational purposes for starters, so you’re really being a dipshit eating your foot more than you are correct.
Naw man, that’s just what they want you to believe because it benefits them.
We’ve de facto owned copies of whatever was purchased until the Internet changed the way ownership functions.
Laws are written by people. Traditionally, greedy people.
I think everyone understands just fine, we just won’t be able to change that until the people who write laws are changed.
De facto, yes. De jure, no.
Sure, but like I said. People write the law… Greedy people usually.
No, that’s literally how software/media has always worked…
If you “own” code, then you can copy, distribute, and profit off of it 100% legally.
That’s why software/media you “buy” is a license for personal use.
That’s the entire point of the issue…
Did you think Blockbuster or any other rental store could buy a copy from Walmart and rent it out? Those were different licenses and the rental stores paid a shit ton more for their copies to be able to rent them.
Because it’s never been about the physical media, but the license attached to it that determines fair usage
Yes and no. They did have licensing deals for video, but for video games they relied entirely on the First Sale Doctrine. Nintendo tried to sue because they didn’t want to allow rentals, and lost.
You misunderstand me.
It hasn’t always worked the way it does today. I know you buy a “license”. But when you bought that cd rom or floppy or dvd or whatever physical media, you didn’t have to do anything else to make it work. That copy ALWAYS worked, and you could sell it when you no longer needed it. Or you could let your friend borrow it.
“Fair usage” doesn’t really work the way it used to.
That is not what “fair use” means in the context of copyright.
Also most of those licenses were non-transferable which means it was illegal to sell those games secondhand. But again it was unenforceable.
What you are talking about is DRM.
I think you are also missing my point.
I’m not talking about what the law is/was.
Also, I put “Fair usage” in quotes for a reason.
My point is that those producing media should not be able to sell you something that you are not allowed to control to some extent, and use at your disposal.
YES! That’s how it fucking worked! For the exact same reason libraries can just buy a book, and then lend it out, because they fucking own it. That’s what the money was for!
Rental chains only developed contractual relationships with movie studios because it’s otherwise kind of difficult to buy five thousand copies of one tape. Studios sued, and lost, and came back with a truce.
The first sale doctrine is over a century old. Every medium has tried insisting it’s special, and been slapped down as just another product. Software has been long awaiting that slap. Their excuses aren’t anything new. Your rights have not changed.
Doesn’t matter. Money will never be realer than the imagination of suckers. That is how Closed Source is what steals their souls. Dumbasses.
Is every account on that instance still just the same person?
Personally, I only have one account there and it’s not my host, so, no.
Do you mean you’re not the admin of that instance?
Because they use terms like “host” and “alter” to describe themselves
Straight up wrong. There’s an exception to copyright for educational purposes for starters, so you’re really being a dipshit eating your foot more than you are correct.