Software downloads are not property any more than the music you hear on the radio is property.
That is not even remotely correct. This court ruling has said that software is property. If you purchase a license, there's a transfer of ownership. The ruling is clear on that.
KingButz posted...
It's intangible.
So? Are you going to wrongly argue that you can't own an intangible thing? Also, if you really are going to claim that it's impossible to own an intangible thing, then I'd really like to see the twisted logic that you'd use to attempt to claim that someone else can.
KingButz posted...
When you buy a game on Steam/Origin/PSN or wherever, you aren't actually buying the software. You are only buying a license to use the software, which license can be revoked at any time (at least, under the agreement).
Yes, you're buying the license. Congratulations. At which point, you own the license.
Also, you don't see to get this: the agreement officially means not a single thing when it contradicts the law.
KingButz posted...
If the government can nullifying a willing agreement, what can't they nullify?
There's two major points I need to make about this:
1. No government was involved here, and the fact that you have brought up "the government" makes me think that you have deep-rooted misunderstandings about this entire case. This was a court case. A court is not a government. A court is explicitly separate from a government, in nearly all countries (and certainly throughout the EU). This is a court, ruling on the law, which is what they are there for.
2. You're attempting to argue that a court (of law) should not be able to nullify an agreement that is against the law. The reason that you don't want courts to be able to do this is to protect the ability of corporations to nullify the law. This is backwards. It is the complete opposite of how things should work.