Their tagline is literally ‘you buy it, you own it’. But does it really grants ownership?

  • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      And these are the terms of use for that purchase.

      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.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.