tdrdt

But you can also imagine this scenario: someone has a ring from a great great grantparent. The market value of the ring is $10. But the owner would only sell it for $100000. Then their would noone to bid against.

Comment · 4 years ago

Things are worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay. There are no other reasons involved. Taste doesn't matter, history doesn't matter, material doesn't matter, the creator doesn't matter.

The highest bidder does have his reasons, but they can be very different from person to person.

Comment · 4 years ago

Ow wow! I remember that the sounds were so real after I purchased a sound card!

I am still amazed by the animations. They are still looking very good. Great game.

Comment · 4 years ago

I am not saying people give a fuck it is legally accurate. But since nobody ever reads the terms and conditions this could help to give a quick understanding of what you are paying for.

Everybody knows that renting a car is different than buying a car.

Comment · 4 years ago

That's a different problem. Right now the problem is that people think they buy something but they don't.

Nobody is going to read the terms and conditions before buying. But when you are going to rent something you know the ownership is not transferred to you.

Comment · 4 years ago

I think one simple legislation could help a lot: forbid to use the word 'buy' in this context. Instead it should be 'hire' or 'lease' or something.

Once I 'bought' an e-book that was copy protected by Adobe (my fault I didn't read the specs before buying). But because you can only read it when Adobe's servers are online no ownership is transferred to you as buyer. You buy rights to read the book on their terms.

'Hire this book' would be fair to use in this context.

(Afterwards I successfully converted to book to an e-book format that I owned with some Calibre plugins).