In the first example, it is not fair use, because you don’t buy digital copies of games—you buy a licence to play the game. My Minecraft licence would have been revoked when I didn’t create a Microsoft account. Game companies can impose whatever conditions on a game licence they like (so long as the condition is not otherwise illegal).
Case law is specific to jurisdiction. I don’t know where you live, and I’ve not said where I live. The way buying and selling most digital copies of games is through buying and selling licences, though some software you do pay for the download itself rather than paying for a licence. That doesn’t require case law; that’s literally just what it is, like how if I sign a contract I don’t need case law to demonstrate that what I’ve signed is a contract, it just is. Case law adjudicates matters of law which are in dispute, not figuring out whether a spade is a spade.
Yeah just because you say “this is not in dispute,” doesn’t make it true. The reason there appears to be no dispute is because video game companies haven’t brought a suit against anyone for this specific thing. Until then, it’s nebulous and completely up for debate.
Video game manufacturers have lost several emulation suits in the past, and I would not be one bit surprised if that’s the reason why they never tried to go after this in courts.
Bleem! successfully won their countersuit against Sony because of fair use.
It doesn’t hurt that there is this precedent regarding VHS:
What I’m saying is not in dispute is the fact that you buy licences to play games and that licences can be revoked. Both of those are objective fact. It’s a separate question as to whether or not a given state wants to enact punishment against a former licence holder.
That’s an insane litmus test of objective fact. I’d say a significant amount of court rulings go blatantly against reality lmfao.
You can’t test things in court that aren’t disputed because someone has to dispute it… Who’s gonna dispute that a contract is a contract? Read the text it says when you buy a game. It says what it says. No court can say a document doesn’t say the words it literally explicitly says.
In the first example, it is not fair use, because you don’t buy digital copies of games—you buy a licence to play the game. My Minecraft licence would have been revoked when I didn’t create a Microsoft account. Game companies can impose whatever conditions on a game licence they like (so long as the condition is not otherwise illegal).
And you have case law to back this up?
Case law is specific to jurisdiction. I don’t know where you live, and I’ve not said where I live. The way buying and selling most digital copies of games is through buying and selling licences, though some software you do pay for the download itself rather than paying for a licence. That doesn’t require case law; that’s literally just what it is, like how if I sign a contract I don’t need case law to demonstrate that what I’ve signed is a contract, it just is. Case law adjudicates matters of law which are in dispute, not figuring out whether a spade is a spade.
Yeah just because you say “this is not in dispute,” doesn’t make it true. The reason there appears to be no dispute is because video game companies haven’t brought a suit against anyone for this specific thing. Until then, it’s nebulous and completely up for debate.
Video game manufacturers have lost several emulation suits in the past, and I would not be one bit surprised if that’s the reason why they never tried to go after this in courts.
Bleem! successfully won their countersuit against Sony because of fair use.
It doesn’t hurt that there is this precedent regarding VHS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.
Until Nintendo or Sony, etc actually tries to sue someone for doing it, then it’s up for dispute.
What I’m saying is not in dispute is the fact that you buy licences to play games and that licences can be revoked. Both of those are objective fact. It’s a separate question as to whether or not a given state wants to enact punishment against a former licence holder.
It’s not objective fact unless it’s been tested in court. And this has not.
That’s an insane litmus test of objective fact. I’d say a significant amount of court rulings go blatantly against reality lmfao.
You can’t test things in court that aren’t disputed because someone has to dispute it… Who’s gonna dispute that a contract is a contract? Read the text it says when you buy a game. It says what it says. No court can say a document doesn’t say the words it literally explicitly says.