Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.

Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.

I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?

A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.

I fail to see how those are in any way similar.

 Goliath wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.

Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.

I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?

A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.

I fail to see how those are in any way similar.

You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.

Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.

These days many do for software updates (including for games).

Sure, you can ignore all that and hope your new game doesn't require an update to play initially (some do) or require a more up do date version of the console's OS.

The same can be said for a phone. You can ignore all that and just use the home wifi to download apps to play and use Facebook. No plan required. Or just use it as a fancy clock/calculator/notebook or listen to music without any plan or internet connection at all. These days phones are used for more than just making and taking calls and texts.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.

Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.

I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?

A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.

I fail to see how those are in any way similar.

You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.

Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.

Actually, you can call, text, and do everything you want on a phone without a plan. Skype and other voice programs. Messenger services.

Honestly, the argument from you just makes you look like you have no clue what you are talking about.

This argument about who paid the most for what is irrelevant.

What is relevant?

1. "Officer, here is the receipt for my phone that I bought and my ex-husband refuses to return."

End-of.

Both parents were using their kid as a pawn in their divorce and they should both feel bad.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.

Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.

I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?

A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.

I fail to see how those are in any way similar.

You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.

Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.

Now, I know that entitled is one of your favourite words to use when complaining about kids these days, but can you please give a justification for saying that I'm coming across as entitled? Because I'm not sure how arguing that a console has upkeep costs makes me entitled.

Also, Pay as You Go phones exist. Also, you haven't addressed the need for electricity. Frankly, your argument seems to mostly be "Well, if you ignore the similarities and misrepresent the requirements of each device then they're nothing alike".

I don't "choose to enhance my experience", I "choose" to be able to actually use the games that I purchase by updating the console or downloading others, otherwise I would be limited to the games that were released with the console and that is it. So actually yeah, I was wrong. I'm choosing to enhance my experience from that of looking at the home screen and being unable to play games because they all need to be updated.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
[You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.

Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.

If we're roommates and If you own a $200 chromebook, I pay $60 a month for internet access, do I own your netbook after 4 months? After all, the Chromebook functionally can't do anything without internet access since pretty much everything on it is cloud based.

You can throw around words like entitled to muddy the water but the bottom line is you made a really, really terrible argument and I don't think you're going to be able to spackle it back together. We're not misunderstanding your argument, we're not making strawmen arguments in response - it was simply a really bad argument. If my mom gets my sister a puppy and I pay for the food, it's not my dog, if my mom gets my sister a car and I pay for the gas, it's not my car, if my mom gets my sister a fridge and I buy food, I don't own the fridge... there really isn't an analogy that's going to make this work.

As a side note, I do use one of my old cell phones that no longer has a plan all the time, I gave it to my stepson to play Clash of Clans via wifi.

I've been a DCM for a few years, do I own someone's account yet?

 Ouze wrote:
If we're roommates and If you own a $200 chromebook, I pay $60 a month for internet access, do I own your netbook after 4 months? After all, the Chromebook functionally can't do anything without internet access since pretty much everything on it is cloud based.

You can throw around words like entitled to muddy the water but the bottom line is you made a really, really terrible argument and I don't think you're going to be able to spackle it back together. We're not misunderstanding your argument, we're not making strawmen arguments in response - it was simply a really bad argument. If my mom gets my sister a puppy and I pay for the food, it's not my dog, if my mom gets my sister a car and I pay for the gas, it's not my car, if my mom gets my sister a fridge and I buy food, I don't own the fridge... there really isn't an analogy that's going to make this work.

As a side note, I do use one of my old cell phones that no longer has a plan all the time, I gave it to my stepson to play Clash of Clans via wifi.

While not disagreeing that's its a bad argument, divorce laws. may, actually have an impact on the ownership of a item. For example, a spouse owns a house, but the other pays all the upkeep and bills on it. Under various precedents set the spouse paying the bills does have a legal entitlement to reparation for the funds spent.

Cheers

Andrew

The purpose of divorce laws is to ensure a fair provision to support the financially weaker ex-partner and children, not to establish a kind of legal precedent for the justification of invasion of privacy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of divorce laws is to ensure a fair provision to support the financially weaker ex-partner and children, not to establish a kind of legal precedent for the justification of invasion of privacy.

A misunderstanding here, the info above was in response to the statement that the one who pays the bills has no rights over the item that the bills cover. It is not a precedent in the manner you describe. Being a parent is all the precedent needed.

Cheers

Andrew

This mostly depends on how the phone was given to the daughter. If her mother bought it as a gift for her, then it's the daughter's phone, not the mother's and she has no right to claim theft. Gifting something to someone legal-wise is nothing but transfering ownership from one person to another.

Theft is a crime, not a civil offence, so the mother could claim theft of the phone even if it belonged to her daughter not her.

@AndrewC, thanks for your clarification. I slightly misunderstood the point.

Honestly, I've given up arguing with you guys. The argument, and you guys, aren't worth getting me frustrated enough to take a small holiday. We clearly won't agree. I find your argument bad, you find mine bad. Good. We're at an impass. So I'm calling it a day. Carry on.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of those examples are terrible. And you should all know better than that. "I buy a wii, my friend buys games, so does he own it too?" That's daft. A fridge and food? Also foolish. Terrible argument.

You need to go for something that has an initial purchase, plus large upkeep costs to prevent it from being nothing but a paperweight.

Let me stop you right there. If you do not think that having a console has upkeep you yourself are the daft one.

I thought that consoles these days were all solar powered and generated their own internet signal? Surely you don't have to actually pay for other things in order to use it?

A console is nothing like a phone.
For a console you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to run it, internet to play online, and games/accessories
For a phone you pay for the device and then you pay for the electricity to charge it, data plan to use it, and cases/accessories.

I fail to see how those are in any way similar.

You're both aware that a console doesn't need Internet access, aka upkeep costs, to run, right? A phone DOES need a data plan of some sort to be a phone (now, anyway. It wasn't always this way). You can play Xbox without having Live. You can't use a phone to text or make calls (you know, the main things that make a phone a phone) without some form of data plan. You CHOOSE to enhance your Xbox experience (or wii, as the example was) by connecting online, but you can still play a lot of games offline. You can't make a phone call without a plan. Except 911. Which totally exists outside of the rules anyway.

Honestly, the argument from both of you just makes you look entitled.

You do not require a data plan to send text messages, as text messages (SMS) do not utilize data functions. It will, however, require a voice plan. However, a cellphone can be switched from one carrier to another (assuming both carriers utilize the same technological foundation, GSM or CDMA). This has, literally, nothing to do with the legal ownership of the phone.