gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: First sale litigation in Germany


From: Hadron
Subject: Re: First sale litigation in Germany
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:29 -0000
User-agent: Emacs 23.2.1

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Hadron<address@hidden> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron<address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a ruling from the BGH (third level court which is akin to
>>>>> SCOTUS apart from constitutional matters) regarding first sale aka
>>>>> exhaustion doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consumer rights protection group sued the maker of
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2 asking the court forbid to
>>>>> suggest in a shrink-wrap EULA that online accounts created with one-time
>>>>> key (the key comes with a copy of software/game) can not be sold by game
>>>>> copy owner.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Here is the ruling:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&Sort=12288&nr=52877&pos=4&anz=634
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, in English, the Freetards lost?
>>>
>>> Hm?  The "Freetards" would not be buying Half Life in the first place.
>>
>> They might second hand for next to nothing hoping to play it.
>>
>>> Also the "Freetards" don't rely on first sale rights at all regarding
>>> their licensing.  Actually, Alexander relies on that in one of his
>>> favorite anti-GPL fantasies.
>>>
>>> Consumers, primarily those of proprietary software, lost.
>>
>> How? The people who paid for the SW (and its development) got to play
>> the game.
>
> Wrong: if that would have been what the case was about, the outcome
> would have been different.  The purchasers did not "get to play the
> game": the whole point of the defense (which the court agreed with) was
> that people paid for an _entry_ ticket to an _online_ game, and that it
> was ok that this ticket was exhausted with the first user.

Great.

>
> If you follow the defendants' and the courts' reasoning, it is exactly
> _not_ the software in the packaged medium that people paid for, but
> rather the software/community/identity provided by the online servers.

So the SW isnt what generates the game? I bet you think you should the
source code too?

You sound like a radical loony that expects everything for free.

>
>> Why do you think others should get to play it for next to nothing?
>
> For the same reason that others get to read a book for next to nothing
> once the people who paid for the book got to read it?

Please dont equate reading a book with playing a modern game that costs
millions to develop.

It's quite obvious what your position is : you're a "freetard". It is
well defined.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]