359
What surprise do you have prepared Nintendo? (europe.pub)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

What copyright law did valve violate?

I can only assume that you think that copyright law are laws granting rights to copy holders, rather than laws granting the rights to the creator to control who can make copies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

    That a new law was created to say "if it's on a computer you don't have rights" doesn't mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It's the same as the current anti repair laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    What law?
    The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren't sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it's use, and you can't sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.

    I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    The law you linked is 100 years old

    Laws don't expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?

    Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn't ruled until 2018.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.

    because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do)

    You aren't necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.

    The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn't necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn't a law. That's why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don't think you're even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?

    Again, what law is being broken by steam?
    First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.

    We can't just say that they're breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    , it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.

    It absolutely did not say that.

    17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).

    Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don't apply because you bought a "license".

    But that doesn't change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.

    Court rulings aren't law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    The first link you sent, that I keep talking about, said in the first paragraph that it is 100 yo and superceded 50 years ago:

    Regarding 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which is what superceded it, the 2010 version does mention computer programs but does not mention games except for coin operated games. It doesn't grant you the right to copy (which digit transfer does) and more importantly 109(d) explicit says the right doesn't extend to people who possess the software by means of rental/lease/loan/otherwise without acquiring ownership of it, which is exactly the exemption about selling licenses instead of copies, that these digital stores use to deprive you of ownership. It clearly exempts steam's whole model.
    Checking the most recent version (2024) leaves this pretty much unchanged.

    I agree with you that this is bad, but that doesn't make it illegal.
    However we need to be careful that this doesn't fuck FOSS software, which relies heavily on license enforcement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent