misterBee

I'd eat it.  Give me some tuna pizza right now.

I'd eat it.  Give me some tuna pizza right now.

The only thing this conversation has done is make me want to eat candy corn.

Unfortunately uploading your images in posts is limited to subscribers only.
 
If you need an alternative I'd suggest uploading images to Imgur or Volt's image dump Discord.

Now I can't unhear this. What have you done. 

I'd eat it.  Give me some tuna pizza right now.

I'd eat a tuna and bacon pizza right now.

The animation style is questionable 
 

however they showed the only thing that could make me care about this: 
 

I'd eat a tuna and bacon pizza right now.

I'd eat a tuna and bacon pizza right now.

Sardines.  Anchovies.  🤤
 
Put all the fish on the pizza thanks.

I'd eat it.  Give me some tuna pizza right now.

I'd eat it.  Give me some tuna pizza right now.

Candy corn isn't so bad.  It's just not nearly as good as other candies.  We got mega haters out here.

The only thing this conversation has done is make me want to eat candy corn.

The only thing this conversation has done is make me want to eat candy corn.

The only thing this conversation has done is make me want to eat candy corn.

The only thing this conversation has done is make me want to eat candy corn.

The only thing this conversation has done is make me want to eat candy corn.

Candy corn isn't so bad.  It's just not nearly as good as other candies.  We got mega haters out here.

I got that Dragonball Z underwear.  👀

Since we're talking about Duke3D, has anyone played Ion Fury?  It's pretty good:
 
 

I got that Dragonball Z underwear.  👀

EULAs and TOS have always been the main tools for software developers and sellers of IP (like music) to ensure that buying their product from a store does NOT give you ownership over it.
 
This has actually always been the case, which is what I was arguing in my posts above.  The only difference now is people are starting to pay attention because things like streaming are becoming a thing.
 
This method has sometimes been defeated in court but other times has been upheld.  It's a real clusterfuck.  🙃
 
Some interesting stuff here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Ownership_requirement
 
In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether a copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission.
 
However, the same 9th Circuit panel that decided Vernor v. Autodesk, refused to apply Vernor's three-factor test in UMG v. Augusto to a purported licensing agreement created when UMG sent unsolicited promotional CDs to music critics. The promotional CDs' packaging contained the language: "This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal and state laws." Augusto tried to sell these CDs on eBay and UMG argued that first sale doctrine did not apply since the CDs were not sold and only a licensing relationship was created. However the court held that first sale doctrine applies when a copy is given away and that recipients of the promotional CDs did not accept the terms of the license agreement by merely not sending back the unsolicited CDs.
 
In the case UsedSoft v Oracle, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the sale of a software product, either through a physical support or download, constituted a transfer of ownership in EU law, thus the first sale doctrine applies; the ruling thereby breaks the "licensed, not sold" legal theory, but leaves open numerous questions.