granting the customer the right to use that copy for an indefinite period" which is entirely false because the words are entirely different, and the document doesn't even hint at the fact that they apply to both.
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder
sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a
transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.
inb4 Valve gets pissed and closes everyones steam accounts
there would be nothing we could do about it
The EU ruling states it's now legal to sell software but says nothing about companies having to provide users with means to do so.
you are the single worst debater i've ever met
I can't believe that the majority of post in this thread is some guy who's too upset that he can't get steam games for cheaper than they already are.
Couldn't you imagine all of the money companies would lose if people just bought a huge amount of their game during a sale and then sold them in some black market way for silly hats?
"My argument is broken and a reversal of yours, but now that you've exposed me I'm going to leave you with one final insult and then run for the hills before my reputation is ruined!"
there's not much to debate about when I post the full legal citation and you don't understand it unfortunately :(
You couldn't understand that Steam is a rental service at heart, and because of that you lost brutally.
I don't oppose second hand games, music or films when the object in qustion is a disc, but it is absurd to argue the same should be true for digital products for any reason beyond consistency.
If there was a way to ensure that the person who trades the game in didn't have the game backed up (like how you know the trader doesn't have a cloned copy of a TV), then I would support equal policy; there isn't so I don't.
If this came to fruition, hell yeah I'd take advantage of it. But the fact that I will do it doesn't mean it should be done.
"WHHAAA I CAN'T SELL SOMETHING I DON'T EVEN OWN, HOPE VALVE GETS SUED!!"
This thread in a nutshell.
It's like going to blockbuster and renting a film, then going and selling it somewhere else thinking it's your legal right because you "paid" for it.
And why is everybody so for standing up to protect the companies, which have their asses covered pretty well, and it's somehow stupid to be standing up to protect the consumers? Just the kind of fucked up, backward ass society we're being raised into.
People don't seem to realize that you have literally 0 ownership of any of your games on Steam. When you buy a Steam game you're buying the right to play it, not ownership.
You're making arguments against made up points nobody ever made in this thread. Is this how you were trained to argue?