Nero the Giant Whiscash
The Legendary Nero
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2012
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 44
[video=youtube_share;vxZ1g3-2qKU]http://youtu.be/vxZ1g3-2qKU[/video]
Oh god tell me its not true.
Oh god tell me its not true.
-
Our friends at Johto Times have concluded their massive Favorite Pokémon Poll and the final results are now up. Click here if you're interested in seeing if any of your favorites made it!
NO MORE USED GAMES EVER.... maybe
- Thread starter Nero the Giant Whiscash
- Start date
- Status
Kelleo
Secret Sword of Justice
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 4,066
- Reaction score
- 266
What. The. Hell.
This is an even worse idea than those bills against piracy. The reporter dude is right, once something is sold to you, it's yours and yours to resell when you don't want/need it anymore. In the case of things like books, games, and movies, the CONTENT isn't yours (unless you wrote the book or something, of course), but the COPY of it is once you buy it. The Supreme Court shouldn't take that right away from us at all. Things like garage sales and online stores like Amazon help us when we're financially tight and would like to make money off of used products that are still useable, but that we no longer want or need.
This is friendly to the environment too. Reusing things is ALWAYS friendly to the environment. The word "reuse" is even part of the phrase "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!" And as a tree hugger myself, I want to protect the environment!
EDIT: What IS wrong, IS illegal, and should STAY illegal is burning your own copies of CDS and movies and stuff and then selling them. THAT is hurting the people that made them. Not reselling a copy you bought in a store that you no longer want.
This is an even worse idea than those bills against piracy. The reporter dude is right, once something is sold to you, it's yours and yours to resell when you don't want/need it anymore. In the case of things like books, games, and movies, the CONTENT isn't yours (unless you wrote the book or something, of course), but the COPY of it is once you buy it. The Supreme Court shouldn't take that right away from us at all. Things like garage sales and online stores like Amazon help us when we're financially tight and would like to make money off of used products that are still useable, but that we no longer want or need.
This is friendly to the environment too. Reusing things is ALWAYS friendly to the environment. The word "reuse" is even part of the phrase "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!" And as a tree hugger myself, I want to protect the environment!
EDIT: What IS wrong, IS illegal, and should STAY illegal is burning your own copies of CDS and movies and stuff and then selling them. THAT is hurting the people that made them. Not reselling a copy you bought in a store that you no longer want.
Interesting case.
In this case, I think the lower courts ruled right, and the laws were correct and applied correctly. We're not talking some innocent little guy here: we're talking someone who had his family in Asia buy products cheap, then imported it to the US to resell it significantly cheaper than the normal US sales price. It wasn't selling your used stuff, it was basically gaming the system to the disadvantage of the companies. I don't see the courts ever taking his side, and I don't see why they should.
The broader legal aspects are iffier, because the limitation presently used by the law court - "product made in the US" are fine for resale, products that were ever imported are not - is a bad one. But this isn't the right case to get the law changed. Which is what it would take for the SC to rule for the guy.
In this case, I think the lower courts ruled right, and the laws were correct and applied correctly. We're not talking some innocent little guy here: we're talking someone who had his family in Asia buy products cheap, then imported it to the US to resell it significantly cheaper than the normal US sales price. It wasn't selling your used stuff, it was basically gaming the system to the disadvantage of the companies. I don't see the courts ever taking his side, and I don't see why they should.
The broader legal aspects are iffier, because the limitation presently used by the law court - "product made in the US" are fine for resale, products that were ever imported are not - is a bad one. But this isn't the right case to get the law changed. Which is what it would take for the SC to rule for the guy.
- Status