Quote:
Originally Posted by thename
So your argument is that ownership confers rights exceeding those of a licensee unless violating the terms of the license revokes your ownership in which case your rights are limited to those described in the license.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about. My argument is that the transfer of rights is either as a sale or as a license, one or the other. You can't have it both ways. If it is a sale, then copyright law grants the owner rights that a ToS can't take away. If you are the owner, then the seller can not take away your fair use, first sale, etc.
The Blizzard vs MDY case established that it was a license, not a sale. Therefore Secion 117 of Copyright didn't apply and they were bound by the terms in the EULA.
Other cases, with different circumstances, found that it was a sale, and Copyright law trumped any claims to the contrary in the EULA.
You seem to think those two examples are contradictions, when they are not. The critical difference is in ownership vs license. I think the piece your missing is that just because the retailer/seller claims it's a license in a ToS or EULA, does not make it true. What matters is how the IP is sold and what expectations the buyer has based on that transaction.
A company can not make you think you are buying something, and then try to claim that it was only a license. Courts have already shot that down.
Quote:
|
It's safe to say that you disagree with our ... reading of decisions which we perceive to have the effect of stripping consumers' rights and that we're all on great, legally sound footing when it comes to our digital devices. I feel so much better!
|
I never said anything of the kind. I absolutely agree that consumer's are loosing a lot of their rights. But lets not make it worse by granting the content industry victories that don't exist by spreading misinformation.