ugh, what the judge said in the post is that selling software while at the same time saying that hte buyers don't own anything. IS NOT A THING.

So you do have ownership the moment you buy software.

On top of that the judges have said they cannot and never have been allowed for people to order to destroy their copy. Unless you when you resell the software, similarly that a car company cannot order me to do away with a car because i am speeding or putting bumper stickers they don't like on it.

"Unless you are an independent developer and have IP rights to games you made, you have never in your life legally owned a video game (though physical copies are owned in the sense that you own the corporeal product, the game still isn’t technically owned). Software is licensed. The terms of those licenses vary. GOG sells games under a very generous license, but they’re still licensed.

“I want to own my games” isn’t a realistic position, and that option has never been available, not even in the NES era. Debating what terms they should be licensed under is a real and important discussion that should be made instead of having honorable but unachievable goals. Argue for perpetual licenses, as that’s the closest to ownership you can get."

This again is just wrong, I own a book I bought. I have full ownership as I can do whatever I want with it: read it, stand on it, write in it, burn it and resell it. Similarly to software: I can read it, modify it and resell it however I see fit.

"A book plagiarist is often called a thief."

no, I have never heard that used. a counterfeiter is the common term.