- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Ubisoft responded to California gamers’ The Crew shutdown lawsuit in late February, filing to dismiss the case. The company’s lawyers argued in that filing, reviewed by Polygon, that there was no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game.” Ubisoft has made it clear, lawyers claimed, that when you buy a copy of The Crew, you’re merely buying a limited access license.
“Frustrated with Ubisoft’s recent decision to retire the game following a notice period delineated on the product’s packaging, Plaintiffs apply a kitchen sink approach on behalf of a putative class of nationwide customers, alleging eight causes of action including violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as common law fraud and breach of warranty claims,” Ubisoft’s lawyers wrote.
Does the rental company now have one less car they can rent?
Does the developer now have one less license they can lease?
No they don’t, because I returned it before a shortage occured. They just lost the profit from rent.
No he doesn’t.
In both cases the additional cost caused by your actions is very low. Damage was still fine to the provider.
If the additional cost per user is very low people should not be priced out, still.
That’s strange, the goal post was right here just a minute ago…
Whatever time period you had taken the rental car for was a time period that they could not have rented it to someone else. You can’t know until after the fact if there would have been a shortage in that time frame. There’s also the extra wear you have put on the car.
If you took a rental car for 5 minutes and returned it I doubt anyone would charge you with anything.
Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn, or if you see it as someone depriving someone else of their property, or both of them count.
I’d argue both qualify as theft, and pirating is the first case. Just because you can replicate something for free (which is not the case with software) does not mean you are entitled to it.
Ah, so children playing in the park is theft. (They didn’t pay for or earn it). Drinking from a creek is theft. Breathing air is theft. I quoted your post, I guess that is theft as well.
I am not claiming they are entitled to it, I’m just saying it’s not theft.
You can’t steal from nature. Parks are provided for the public, its literally the whole point.
Any more gotchas?
So you don’t define theft as “someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn” then. Glad we agree.
If someone’s part of the “public” then its provided to them for 0$, thats the deal. If they are an adult in that area they might pay for it in taxes, but most places won’t limit access to local taxpayers. There is nothing underhanded happening there. Its provided for a group of people and those people use it within the guidelines setup for them.
Im sure you will have as little to say in your next reply but do try to actually make a point.
Of course it is. I don’t know who you think you’re disagreeing with here.
Interesting considering you had a lot to say without making any point at all. What exactly is the point you’re trying to make here?