I mean you can argue that when you buy a pazzaz you don't pay for the food, you pay for the cook cooking it.
I guess you're right that I could argue that. I'm sure other people would agree that it is outrageous that, if you are specifically seeking out a restaurant for freshly prepared quality food and you get an obviously microwaved frozen pizza from a supermarket, it would be fraudulent.
Alas, a pazzaz (??) is a physical scarce good and thus it falls within the category of "can be owned", unlike a game.
In your allegory, if you put ketchup on the pazzaz, the chef would be entitled to taking your pazzaz away because you broke the terms.
If the restaurant in question happens to have such house rules that prospective customers have to abide by, I would say yes, it's the fault of the customer for blatantly disregarding house rules.
If those house rules are undocumented, unpublished (and thus not visible ahead of entering the restaurant's premises), or made up on the spot, that is a clear violation of the customer's rights.
Any questions?
[Copying and redistributing games] should be in your right to store, archive and replicate it.
100%.
Unless your purchase agreement includes a clause to abstain from doing so, in which case doing so would be fraud on your part (breach of contract).
I think VGs are closer compared to books (which also face a similar issue in the digital space, you do not own books). As long as you own the book, you can transcribe it, give it to other people, at no point is the publisher allowed to take your book away for scribbling on the pages.
Exactly right
The thing with games (digital media) is that you are NEVER presented with a lease agreement or terms before you make the purchase. Nobody makes sure you are informed about the termination of your product or the service. Ticking a box, or having an "agree and purchase" or even worse, "now that you bought it you need to sign tna" does not count.
Fully agree, which is why I personally consider most applications of "terms and service" and "end-user license agreement" to be illegitimate and therefore null and void.
Then again I do discriminate against publishers, vendors, websites, and service providers who handle their shit badly, and thus they lost me as a prospective source of revenue.
Anyway my point is, games are presented as purchases. At no point are you asked to sign a lease agreement and, at worst, forced into it after they ourchased the product.
True, it is an argument of "presented as X, logically and
de facto actually Y"
Like I said earlier, if you can prove that you entered an agreement that transferred onto the customer "ownership of a game", that agreement (sale) is null and void and fraudulent, because such a thing cannot be sold. Same way if I sold you the right to lick Joe Biden's ribcage while it's still inside of him, or half of the moon orbiting the Earth, it would also be attempted fraud on my part.