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.
Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.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.
, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.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.
The first link you sent, that I keep talking about, said in the first paragraph that it is 100 yo and superceded 50 years ago:
Regarding 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which is what superceded it, the 2010 version does mention computer programs but does not mention games except for coin operated games.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.