direkiller said:
no it's like saying you own the ford station wagon but not the software on it's the computer
Semantics. We're not talking about IP law here, but physical ownership. If I wanted to go into my car's onboard system and modify it to give me a better performance boost, it's my right as a consumer to do that. I bought the product, and have physical ownership to do what I want with it, short of trying to use the company trademark or proprietary software for commercial profit. The same applies (in a smaller scale) with games and physical media.
you don't own the non-physical media on the disk,card,ecd.
No one said an end-user owns the copyright. That goes into IP law, and is very clear.
You cannot modify it outside the wishes of the IP owner or outside of fair use(hence why hackers can get banned).
Again, a false statement. Aside from the factor that no copyright owner in the world has the ability to enforce such a claim ("modifying outside the wishes of the IP owner"), it ties back into my response, which was that - short of commercially profiting off the IP - you can do whatever you like with it.
If you're playing on a multiplayer server using cheats, or you play a game before it's released, that falls into existing copyright law because you're either trying to play a game on the company's own commercial servers (in most cases), or you're just straight-out breaking the law because you have an illegally-obtained copy of the product.
Licensing and renting is the diffidence between owning the physical portion and not.(renting you own neater). It also is more restrictive as generically the rights to rental cannot be sold but the Licence can.
Licence and ownership the diffidence is rather simple. The ability to use Exclusive rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Licence has always been separate from physical ownership. In fact, your link there disproves your argument - exclusive rights (or a "bundle of rights", as it extends to IP) includes physical ownership for the end user.
You should have posted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
As I said before, the rule of first-sale doctrine allows you, as a consumer end-user of a physical product, to resell that product for less than its original price, and the copyright holder doesn't have a say in what happens after it is sold.
Copyright law grants a copyright owner an exclusive right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. 106(3). This is called "distribution right" and differs from the copyright owner's "reproduction right" which involves making copies of the copyrighted works. Rather than the right to copy, the distribution right involves the right to transfer physical copies or phonorecords (i.e., recorded music) of the copyrighted work. For example, the distribution right could be infringed when a retailer acquires and sells to public unlawfully made audio or video tapes. Although the retailer may not have copied the work in any way and may not have known that the tapes were made unlawfully, he nevertheless infringes the distribution right by the sale. The distribution right allows the copyright owner to go after any member in the chain of distribution.
The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner's reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder's right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of. For this reason, this doctrine is also referred to as "exhaustion rule."
It amazes me how many people (like yourself) buy publishers' arguments hook, line and sinker. It's been in effect for almost a whole century, and it's the reason why game publishers are trying to go all-digital - they just want more profit.
