Your consideration is being able to access the game.
Edit: I brain farted, and think I mixed up terms. Aleatory contracts are still valid, the issuers just have to withstand higher scrutiny if challenged.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
No it isn’t; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you’re not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download – i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself – but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
And these are the terms of use for that purchase. If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract. If those terms include that you don’t later publish videos of them on social media and then you do, you open yourself up to being sued, even though after the service has been provided you are no longer receiving an active benefit.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as “terms of use for that purchase;” it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract.
We’re talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
I’m not sure how you’re getting to those conclusions, but it doesn’t make sense to me and clearly my conclusions aren’t making sense to you. Have a good night.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
Edit: I brain farted, and think I mixed up terms. Aleatory contracts are still valid, the issuers just have to withstand higher scrutiny if challenged.
No it isn’t; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you’re not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download – i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself – but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
What else ya got?
And these are the terms of use for that purchase. If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract. If those terms include that you don’t later publish videos of them on social media and then you do, you open yourself up to being sued, even though after the service has been provided you are no longer receiving an active benefit.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as “terms of use for that purchase;” it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
We’re talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
I’m not sure how you’re getting to those conclusions, but it doesn’t make sense to me and clearly my conclusions aren’t making sense to you. Have a good night.