>>508862765I don't think you understand the goal.
You sell something, which means it is no longer in your hands- you don't need to give anything anymore beyond this.
How things currently work is that companies pretend to sell you something, while in reality only give you access to it; meaning they can take it away and they will. Why would they do that? So that they can force you to buy access to it again, and again, and again- look at what Nintendo is doing for example.
You pay the same price for a painting, but now they control the projection of it- the paper, and you're left with a blank sheet at their discression. You have to buy the painting again, with a different frame.
They take the real painting, what you paid money for away, not the frame, even though you paid, not for the frame, but for the painting. Without the painting, you wouldn't pay.
The initiative seeks to drag shit like this to law makers.
>>508861600One of the problems is that we're not entitled. That entitlement needs to be generated through laws.
Rather than control, influence.
Generally yes. We want to influence how companies produce products, which by the way they do for the masses, so that they make money and we have done so in the past. For example, we don't want companies to endanger employees to maximize production.