(The cases against closed platforms would be stronger, since on those platforms it's far easier for the secondary seller to prove that they no longer have access to the game.)
Instead make the ruling clear in a case where this specificity doesn't apply, then go deeper in the rabbit hole if needed.
Again I'm only guessing here but it makes sense; similar to how, if you were to go against phone os app stores, you would go after Google first because Apple has the "my market for my product" and "not legaly a monopoly [depending on how you define the market]" card.
You can't really export the game outside of Steam, or use it with Steam disabled for any significant amount of time.
Further, many games purchased on Steam provide keys that work without using the steam account.
For library management, GOG 2 (Alpha) is the best solution I've personally seen (have the various storefronts installed, import the connector for GOG 2, all the games from that storefront are imported into GOG 2, can install/play/etc. on a whim).
While on the other hand, an gamer or game-maker on iPhone or Android or Nintendo or Playstation or XBox has no choice in digital distribution channels.
(And of course the latter have other flaws too - like their famously capricious acceptance processes)
One could even go on to argue that PC gaming allows you to launch your own game store that allows resale if you think it's so important. Personally I don't find that a very convincing argument, though.
That isn't true for all games. There is this [0] list, but I have no idea about its quality. Essentially there are games that don't use the steamworks DRM parts, so while you do not get a steam-independent installer, those games still work after uninstalling steam (and you could probably watch the installer to make your own for a completely steam free PC).
- because games are software, it is hard to enforce that people “selling” them don’t keep a copy for themselves as well
- apparently, this may have allowed an exemption from the “must allow reselling” rule
- because iOS is a walled garden, it is easier to implement DRM to prevent this
- therefore, the courts would have been more likely to force the App Store to allow resale
It's easier to beat Valve's lawyers than Sony's. Sony has a long history of paying out the nose for lawyers who could convince a judge that a law saying "Kill no one" meant "Genocide is legal for Sony Corporation!" (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am...)
Apple and Microsoft are the two most valuable companies on the planet right now, and they, too, can get some great lawyers (though they haven't demonstrated the same courtroom magic that Sony has).
I can't remember who originally was responsible for this quote, but "Nintendo is a pile of cash disguised as a video game company" is something that has been proven anything but incorrect over the past decades. Wouldn't want to pick a fight in any court with them, either. (Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo)
Valve, though? Valve is worth little in comparison, and hasn't had a great history in court. Easy pickings. Then, after you win against Valve, you go up, using the precedent set to help you with the next target.
Is this supposed to be hyperbole? The case itself was never tried, so it that doesn't show anything about how effective sony's lawyers are.
There are plenty of other Sony cases that demonstrate the rule.
Not much happened before the settlement, the parties settled very quickly after Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failed. The TRO sucked, but wasn't particularly unreasonable.
>incredibly unfair things (like the list of people who had legally downloaded the legally-created software of Hotz).
Jurisdictional discovery is not incredibly unfair, and was only a natural consequence of Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
>The reason it was settled out of court was seemingly just so Hotz could avoid a felony.
The fuck? This was a civil case.
Computer fraud is a felony, and around that time the DoJ was getting very trigger-happy in turning civil cases criminal. Google the CFAA, which they were trying to pin Hotz under.
Do you happen to have a single example of this?
And in any case I don't think this is a great example of the DOJ being trigger-happy, what Swartz did was obviously criminal and they were still willing to let him off with only a slap on the wrist.
If it meant hackers stole everything you own and worked for in your life so far you would think twice how legal this is.
Further, the idea that software piracy is stealing is also absurd, for an entirely different reason: copying is not stealing. Sony still had the original copies.
Beyond that: I already do release all of my source code under libre licenses. Copying isn't stealing, and I've lived my life as a testament to that.
Now you can use the stupid libertarian argument that you're just "moving bits around" or "moving numbers around" (and math is not illegal). But do that do much and you'll find that society's answer is to move particles of lead in your general direction, at high velocity.
Stealing is taking someone else's property without permission, as you said. However, copying doesn't take it away from them, and jailbreaking literally doesn't do anything but apply a patch to your existing bits. That's the farthest thing from stealing you could imagine, and your argument falls apart with just the tiniest bit of poking.
Sarcam aside ufc que choisir have foughr a lot of high profile guys before.