Comment

Comment on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games

The first-sale doctrine (also sometimes referred to as the “right of first sale” or the “first sale rule”) is a legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

The first sale doctrine literally has NOTHING TO DO with ownership. It has to do with resale restrictions of the copyright holder. You have completely misunderstood the law and its purpose.

source

Sort:hotnew top

AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Here, since you avoided my question, I’ll just spell it out for you.

What You Actually Bought: A License

In most transactions, you buy a license, not the copyright. A license is formal permission to use the work under specific conditions. It defines where, how, and for how long you can use the content.

Many people assume payment equals ownership because that logic applies to physical goods. But copyright law works differently. Under U.S. law, copyright ownership automatically belongs to the original creator, regardless of who paid for the project.

Sorry, but you do NOT own any of the copyrighted works that have ever been given to you or purchased. They are all licensed with limited usage rights. I pointed out the first sale doctrine to highlight it as a very narrow exception to the norm of licensing. That exception was born of the necessity to balance the reasonable needs of individuals (and of course the used market as a whole), with the purported needs of media rightsholders. Even if that supreme court decision (which was later codified into law) grants one additional right for a person to make a resale of the finite copies of physical goods they purchased legally, even then you still do not own that product, because a plethora of other restrictions still apply.

Copyright law is in need of serious reform. Pretending it is whatever you want it to be doesn’t magically put it on your side. That’s exactly why scammy companies like Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, and Sony can keep getting away with all their bullshit - the law tends to be on their side whether you like it or not, cause guess who it was written for.

source
- tyler@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  You’re not spelling anything out. This article you are commenting under is literally about the case when YOU ARE NOT BUYING A LICENSE.
  
  Like holy fucking shit you are fucking dense.
  
  And yes you are not buying the fucking copyright. It’s like you don’t understand what that means. If you buy a book from the store you are not buying a license. YOU ALSO AREN’T BUYING THE COPYRIGHT.
  
  Sorry, but you do NOT own any of the copyrighted works that have ever been given to you or purchased.
  
  Yes you do. Buying the copyright has nothing to do with buying the product. Here’s an example. I as a photographer can sell you an image. I own the copyright on that. You cannot duplicate and resell my works as your own. But you can do whatever the fuck you want with the original you purchased. But guess what, I can also sell you a license to use that work instead of selling you the product. So I can say, you can’t do whatever you want with this. You can only use it for personal use cases or in one book. Nothing else. That’s selling you a license. Finally, I can sell you the entire copyright for the photo, transferring that copyright to you entirely, meaning now I can’t do anything I want with my own creation anymore.
  
  These are three different things. You are only buying a license in a very specific context. You are almost never as an individual purchasing a copyright, though businesses buy and sell them all the time.
  
  For the case above, Sony was selling you the full product. They were not selling a license. They were not selling the copyright. They were selling you an item you owned and can resell.
  
  source