4. "you only bought the right to use it" - by your own use of words - "bought", it's mine. Buy. Transfer of ownership. It's mine - not licensed, not rented, not "contracted for use for a period of time. That's the definition of the word. I bought it, it's mine. Your argument falls on its face before even passing the starting gates.
Interesting point. I agree with pretty much everything you've posted on this thread, but this part is where it gets a bit unclear. When you buy a computer game, or a book, or a film all you ever get is a licence to use. I don't believe that the copyright owner can subsequently come along and deny your right to use, but that's all you have.
I appreciate that I'm making a rather pedantic point, but I'd be interested in hearing your views.
If you disagree, then exactly what do you believe has been bought, because you certainly wouldn't have the copyright.
As I understand it, when you pay for a game, you aren't buying the game in the same sense that you buy a screwdriver or a car. You're paying for the license, the right to use the software within the constraints of the contract (the license agreement).
Now, there's two schools of thought:
licensed and not bought argument:
The first is that it's a contract and violation of that contract invalidates the agreement, and as such the owner of the software (in our case, Matrix) has the right to stop you from using the software. Also, the EULA is between you and Matrix, and you have no right to resell the game without their permission (read: compensation). (Matrix hasn't made an official statement on the matter, so please consider this an example and nothing more) This is the usual argument put forwards by the software companies. This link provides a reasonable summary of their argument.
First-Sale doctrine argument:
The other school of thought is that software is no different from any other material goods purchased - like a book, for example. In this case, the First-Sale Doctrine applies, and once you've bought it (note: bought - implying transfer of ownership), it's yours to do with as you please. You can use it how you want and resell it to whomever you want. The landmark case for this school of thought is the Kirtsaeng case. In that case, the Supreme Court asserted that the books were Kirtsaeng's and the publishers couldn't restrict him from selling them as he saw fit.
Now, which is the correct interpretation of the law is in question. From my reading on the issue, the courts' position is that First-Sale Doctrine holds sway unless Congress specifically creates legislation defining end-user licensing law. I don't pretend to be a lawyer or to speak authoritatively on the subject, but legal blogs seem to support the stance that it's very much a grey area until congress decides one way or another. And as any good taxpayer knows, grey areas are where you choose which is "correct" and do pretty much as you please.
Of course, if you're not living in the USA, copyright law depends on your local laws. EU residents are pretty much guaranteed First-Sale Doctrine rights.
** First-Sale doctrine - you bought it, you own it. You can resell it when you're done/bored with it.
Disclaimer: I expect to be schooled by any copyright lawyer visiting the forums, and would indeed welcome it.
< Message edited by Kayoz -- 2/15/2014 5:34:52 AM >
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens