4 ms·
I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but I'm sure you're right that there's no _legal_ ambiguity with these "purchases." The point is that ambiguity is deli
by public_defender 4y ago
I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but I'm sure you're right that there's no _legal_ ambiguity with these "purchases." The point is that ambiguity is deliberately generated in the mind of the consumer in order to have the marketing benefits of a sale (and create the fiction that the user has property, which if mishandled would need to be replaced), while also heavily restricting use of the content under an onerous license.
- charcircuit 4y agoWhat would consumers think they were buying if not a license to it? How would it work if everyone bought the actual copyright? What else could you be buying?
- public_defender 4y agoJust my guess, but I think most people believe they are buying a copy of a game. Like you used to be able to buy a comic book or a Pokemon card made of paper. You didn't have obscure rights to the art or prose, but you could draw moustaches on the Pikachu.
- charcircuit 4y ago>but you could draw moustaches on the Pikachu. No, you never could. That's copyright infringement.
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoI would think most consumers are buying a perpetual, irrevocable (and until recently, typically) unrefundable license. I dont think any consumer expects an older program to no longer work just because the company decided it shouldn't work anymore.