Re: First sale litigation in Germany

[David Kastrup]

Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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?

According to court and defendants (and the actual facts), what you buy
is not supposed to provide the game all on its own.  They compare it to
a show ticket, and the ticket does not usually do the show.

> I bet you think you should the source code too?

Hm? What are you fantasizing about right now?

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

You should try to focus on what I write rather than what you fantasize
about me before drawing conclusions.

>>> 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.

Should I rather equate it with listening to a modern music CD that costs
millions to produce?

What you seemingly don't understand is that there are no different laws
depending on how much you invest generating copyrightable material.

The _law_ equates media of various kinds.

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

Apparently it includes the lawmakers.  Now you may very well desire
getting different laws depending on how much money you invest into a
production.  A lot of companies do, and when they throw enough money at
lawmakers in the right way (which is called lobbying), they do get some
results.  But those results then hold equally well for writers of books.

You don't get exceptions for your money.  You only get to change the
rules for everybody, and you have no guarantee it will work.  Even
though Hollywood has a rather impressive track record.

-- 
David Kastrup