Hacker News Reader

That's a good point. When I was reading about this, I didn't put too much stock in the fact that the code was on a piece of paper in the box. But, it seems that this is a very narrow ruling based on that fact.

Once someone redeems the code, they presumably have to have a Disney account and agree to some kind of terms of service.

View on HN

And these Disney's digital copy's redemption "terms of service" is the subject of judge's ruling. Because those terms force consumers to acknowledge, that they own the physical copy, which means that these terms put restrictions on the resale of physical copy (i.e. basically forbids reselling), and it's not ok for the judge.

I get that this ruling is focused on the piece of paper before it's redeemed and it's really good that a sticker isn't enough to limit your ability to resell something.

I'm wondering about after someone has redeemed the code. Once someone redeems the code, they presumably have to sign up for an account and agree to a long terms of service, which is (to my understanding) more accepted as a contract. It seems like this ruling doesn't significantly advance the issue of digital ownership.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com