Dastardly said:
You're framing this in the wrong way. You have an absolute right to be allowed to live. I have an absolute right to be allowed to live. The reason I'm "allowed" to kill you in self defense isn't because I have a "right to kill you in self defense." It's because you're attempting to interfere with my right to live.
Two equivalent rights are in conflict, and so the "tiebreaker" goes to the defender.
First off, what about executions? In that scenario there is no tiebreaker because no one else has their life at stake except for the prisoner. In that scenario we say that the prisoner has forfeited his or her right to live because of his or her actions.
I've framed the scenario analogously to the rights of ownership. Just as each person owns his or her life and has a right to it, so too do they have a right of ownership over the things they rightfully possess. My point was that ownership is still a right, it's just that it isn't clear who has ownership in the scenario of the PS3. You may disagree whether the customer has ownership, but you can't say that ownership isn't a right. If it isn't then I can take away all of your possessions without violating your rights, which is clearly not the case.
Dastardly said:
But the seller is the one who determines what "paid in full" means. If what you "paid in full for" is a license, then that's what they give you. In this case, the seller is saying there is no "paid in full" when it comes to the console. Just the license. The issue is whether the consumer has that information before purchase, but the terms themselves are fair and legal--until the law changes, if it does.
You see, the problem is that I don't think that you're just paying for the license. I think you're paying for the physical hardware. If you didn't, that means that you would have to return it at some point to the company, or would need to continue to make payment on the device. Frankly I think the EULA license should be illegal. At the very least it is an unsound and misleading business practice. In fact, you could make a case that Sony is using false advertising, because the customer is told to
buy a PS3, not to license one to use. The fact that you only get the license after you buy the console would only strengthen the case.
Dastardly said:
No, it doesn't. In your example, the person wants very much to rebel, but they don't out of fear. In the real situation, people are completely free to "rebel" by refusing to buy or even by just complaining, and they don't really care to. They're fine with the service they're getting.
And Sony is not a government. A tyrant is wrong because that tyrant has power over you without your choosing. Sony only has "power" over people that choose to be their customers, and only as long as they choose. Nothing is forced on anyone. No tyranny, nor any acceptable analogue for tyranny.
I'll grant you that it isn't a perfect analogy, but it still holds to a certain extent. By your logic all trusts are okay. If the oil companies decide to get together and rig prices, it's alright because people aren't
forced to buy gasoline, they can just ride a bike.
Now you might object that gaming consoles are luxuries and not necessities, but I don't think that exempts them from the rule. I still think that it's unreasonable for millions of people to stop engaging in one of their favorite past times for a few years just so they can be treated fairly. Once again, I fail to see how people's unwillingness to boycott bad business practices is tantamount to affirming the validity of those practices.
Dastardly said:
Or maybe people should stop assuming that just because they don't like something, it means everyone's being treated "badly," whether they feel they are or not.
I've never made the argument that it's only me that's suffering. I
have made the argument that this practice is detrimental to the consumer in general. I'm basing this upon the legal effects of the practice, not upon the negative emotions of the consumer. You seem to be skirting my objections that something can be bad for someone even though that person doesn't care.
Dastardly said:
No. The law is meant to protect. It's not meant to protect just you. It may also serve to protect the rights of someone that creates a valuable product, and deserves the revenue associated with that product.
The law is first and foremost meant to protect the basic rights of citizens. While the law should protect corporations as well, it should
not do it at the expense of the individual citizen's rights. The law should also stop unsound business practices, of which I think this is a case.
Dastardly said:
"Might makes wrong" is just as stupid and senseless as "might makes right."
You keep taking my statements out of context. I never said that Sony was
wrong because it had more power, I said it was wrong to
abuse its power by singling out an individual who can't defend himself very well in order to make an example of him.
