3 ms·
That's not unreasonable - you don't own World of Warcraft you own a license to play it. The distinction being made here is not between holding copyright and ho
by kd0amg 15y ago
That's not unreasonable - you don't own World of Warcraft you own a license to play it.
The distinction being made here is not between holding copyright and holding a license. It is between owning a copy and holding a license.
- brc 15y agoBut this is why the concept of the software licence was developed. It is explicitly developed so that you don't take ownership of the item in the same way you take ownership of a DVD or printed book. Holding copyright is not the same as owning an item. The parent comment is factually correct.
- reissbaker 15y agoAnd yet, used game sales -- to specifically take on the parent's example -- are legal, much to the consternation of the game industry. The fact that they're legal is what prompted the development of online activation systems: to make an end-run around the resellers. Whether they should be legal is a different and murkier question. And resale of digital music files is clearly pretty ridiculous, since you could just follow this plan for free stuff: 1. Copy the file. 2. Upload it to the reseller. 3. Profit!
- larrik 15y agoThey definitely should be legal. Online activations should be forced to accept it, as well. Especially when you consider that a lot of games go out of print and get impossible to find just months after release. Which is bad for someone like me who never pays attention to games that aren't already out, and may take years to get around to playing a game. Used games are often my only recourse.