194
What's the laziest thing you have done?
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
194 points (99.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54778 readers
412 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
What I'm saying is not in dispute is the fact that you buy licences to play games and that licences can be revoked. Both of those are objective fact. It's a separate question as to whether or not a given state wants to enact punishment against a former licence holder.
It's not objective fact unless it's been tested in court. And this has not.
That's an insane litmus test of objective fact. I'd say a significant amount of court rulings go blatantly against reality lmfao.
You can't test things in court that aren't disputed because someone has to dispute it... Who's gonna dispute that a contract is a contract? Read the text it says when you buy a game. It says what it says. No court can say a document doesn't say the words it literally explicitly says.
Well I'm sorry that you don't understand case law, but that's exactly how it works in situations like this.
Nobody now, because that's a precedent that's already been set. In a court.
Something that has not happened for the situation we're talking about.
Edit: to be clear, it's not necessarily true that nobody would dispute that actually. There are likely numerous cases regarding identifying the validity of a contract on the books, which is how we know exactly what one is.
If someone were to come up with an interesting enough situation that warrants a new case, then that outcome would be added to the list of cases that define what a contract is (do a Google search, there are already a whole bunch like that).
That's literally how the court system works.