- sesquipadelian
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.
So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....
"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..
Posted by: BerserkerBarage
Since we are on the subject of examples, let me give you one.
I own a bike. I like my bike. One day Ses comes and steals my bike. Now Ses wants to sell my bike to Frag. They agree upon a price and Frag gives Ses $25 bucks for my bike. Who owns the bike?
Obviously I do still because Ses cannot transfer ownership of the bike to Frag because he does not own the bike in order to make a valid contract. Here's how it applies to Halo 3.
Bungie/MSGS own the rights and product of Halo 3. They sell the game to retailers under the contract that the retailers are able to take possession of the product as long as they abide by certain guidelines, the beginning of which starts with when they sell the game. If the retailers violate that contract they no longer have any ownership rights to the Halo 3 product which means that any selling of the game they do is thereby invalid because they no longer have ownership in order to validly transfer rights and ownership. I buy the game through an invalid contract, which does not transfer ownership to me. Since there is no valid contract between myself and the retailer, the game is still the property of Bungie/MSGS.
Understand?
i understand your point, but your example involving stolen property is disanalogous. in the case of selling stolen property, the seller NEVER has ownership of the item in question. in the case of game sellers, they do take ownership of the discs at a point before the discs are sold to consumers, and this is the case no matter when they sell them. the game sellers buy and own the games, and they agree to sell their games according to certain constraints, such as price and sales date, but they own the games. they own the game on 9/25, and they own the games on 9/24. since they own the discs, and since buyers properly buy the discs, game players will have proper ownership of the games, even though the game seller has broken their agreement with the game maker. by game sellers violating the terms of their agreement with microsoft, the discs are not still owned by microsoft. IF they were, then your argument would hold. but, since we have no reason to suppose that the sales of game discs to game sellers has such strict property ownership clauses, we have no reason to believe that anyone is selling stolen goods.
the game sellers own the discs, and they sell them to players in ways that happen to break their sales agreement with microsoft. game sellers own the games, and they have agreed to sell the games to players according to certain conditions, but they still own the games, and game buyers who buy the discs rightly own them. again, you are conflating things here.