4 ms·

But you can’t buy, since selling is illegal. Nothing personal, but it’s a bad mental habit to make a distinction where there is no difference.

by 2024throwaway 3y ago

p-e-w 3y ago
There is a big difference between selling and buying, and you can (legally) buy plenty of things that are illegal to sell.
kube-system 3y ago
There are practical differences between the two. See, for example, the past 20 years of marijuana regulation in the US.
anigbrowl 3y ago
The difference is that you won't get arrested for buying a roided-up Jigglypuff.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
seanhunter 3y ago
Take a trivial example, proscription medications. In many countries it is illegal to sell these unless you have a pharmacist's license. It's not illegal to buy them, because you can buy them from a legal seller. This case is very similar in the asymmetry between buying and selling. You get the save game by buying the game and playing the game. That's not illegal. It's also not illegal to tamper with your own save game (if I understand other comments on this article correctly). What is illegal is to sell a save that you have tampered with.[1] From a legal perspective it's perfectly possible to ban the sale of something without banning the purchase, just like certain things are illegal to sell or buy but not illegal to have.[2] [1] You may well say it's crazy that this is the case, but I could sort of see both sides of this. I do think cheating in competitive multiplayer games really ruins things for other players so I could see the argument for banning anything that does that. In singleplayer games my view is "do whatever you think is fun for you" but that's just a personal perspective. My understanding is people play Pokemon against each other so you could say that cheating with a modified save harms others. I'm not sure that's important enough to justify a law but it's really not my business to say. [2] Famous example - if you go to the Moma there is an artwork by Robert Rauschenberg that was the centre of a famous tax lawsuit for this exact reason. The artwork itself is basically a painting, but one of the things that Rauschenberg did was sort of alter paintings by sticking sculptural elements on to them and this particular one includes a dead and stuffed bald eagle. Now this was not illegal at the time, but when the bald eagle became endangered, the sale of anything that included any part of a bald eagle became illegal. So this artwork can never be sold. When Rauschenberg died, the IRS went after his estate for tax on this painting which they valued at $29million. However his family said the value of the painting was zero because it can never be legally sold (even though it's not illegal for them to own it). https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of-art-and-taxes-starring-a-stuffed-eagle.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

But you can’t buy, since selling is illegal. Nothing personal, but it’s a bad mental habit to make a distinction where there is no difference.

p-e-w 3y ago

There is a big difference between selling and buying, and you can (legally) buy plenty of things that are illegal to sell.

kube-system 3y ago

There are practical differences between the two. See, for example, the past 20 years of marijuana regulation in the US.

anigbrowl 3y ago

The difference is that you won't get arrested for buying a roided-up Jigglypuff.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

seanhunter 3y ago

Take a trivial example, proscription medications. In many countries it is illegal to sell these unless you have a pharmacist's license. It's not illegal to buy them, because you can buy them from a legal seller. This case is very similar in the asymmetry between buying and selling. You get the save game by buying the game and playing the game. That's not illegal. It's also not illegal to tamper with your own save game (if I understand other comments on this article correctly). What is illegal is to sell a save that you have tampered with.[1] From a legal perspective it's perfectly possible to ban the sale of something without banning the purchase, just like certain things are illegal to sell or buy but not illegal to have.[2] [1] You may well say it's crazy that this is the case, but I could sort of see both sides of this. I do think cheating in competitive multiplayer games really ruins things for other players so I could see the argument for banning anything that does that. In singleplayer games my view is "do whatever you think is fun for you" but that's just a personal perspective. My understanding is people play Pokemon against each other so you could say that cheating with a modified save harms others. I'm not sure that's important enough to justify a law but it's really not my business to say. [2] Famous example - if you go to the Moma there is an artwork by Robert Rauschenberg that was the centre of a famous tax lawsuit for this exact reason. The artwork itself is basically a painting, but one of the things that Rauschenberg did was sort of alter paintings by sticking sculptural elements on to them and this particular one includes a dead and stuffed bald eagle. Now this was not illegal at the time, but when the bald eagle became endangered, the sale of anything that included any part of a bald eagle became illegal. So this artwork can never be sold. When Rauschenberg died, the IRS went after his estate for tax on this painting which they valued at $29million. However his family said the value of the painting was zero because it can never be legally sold (even though it's not illegal for them to own it). https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of-art-and-taxes-starring-a-stuffed-eagle.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]