you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 15 hours ago (10 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 15 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (3 children)

    Doesn't matter. Money will never be realer than the imagination of suckers. That is how Closed Source is what steals their souls. Dumbasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

    multiverse.soulism.net

    Is every account on that instance still just the same person?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments