4 ms·
From the article: Bethesda’s letter claims that Hupp’s sale is not protected by the First Sale Doctrine, because he is not selling the game in its original for
by throwaway080383 8y ago
From the article:
Bethesda’s letter claims that Hupp’s sale is not protected by the First Sale Doctrine, because he is not selling the game in its original form, which would include a warranty. The letter says this lack of warranty renders the game “materially different from genuine products” that are sold through official channels.
IANAL, but it seems to me that if this argument goes through, it would render first sale doctrine useless, as you could tack on a warranty to just about any old product.
- throwaway13337 8y agoThis is a common legal refrain when trying to get around the first sale doctrine. I've received letters from lawyers about the re-sale of physical products being illegal because of the lack of the original warranty. It didn't seem to have teeth at the time but it sure scared me.
- ams6110 8y agoWarranties for software are notoriously narrowly scoped. Not warranted for any particular use or fitness for any purpose, etc. About all they will warrant is that the media itself works and offer to replace it if it doesn't. So just warrant that what you are selling is what it claims to be and offer a refund or replacement if it isn't. That seems to be materially the same as what the original seller provides.
- trophycase 8y agoWho the hell are the lawyers who are making these cases. These people need to be held accountable for slowly making things worse.