If its leftover then its lower quality. That's fine.

But in this case its the exact same product. If I'm a bakery owner and I give fresh out of the oven bread for cheaper/free to homeless folks, and I watch them turn around and sell it to my own customers, well, that freagin sucks.

Regardless of how sucky you would feel about it, do you think that would warrant limiting the rights of the people you gave the bread?

Regardless of how I feel about it, the options are:

- Keep giving bread and lose an indeterminate amount of business from my target audience

- Limit the rights of the people who I gave the bread to

- Stop giving bread at all.

If #2 is not possible, then it's either "I take a business hit for trying to provide a service to the less fortunate" or "Fuck the less fortunate".

So now with that said, how I feel about it? Yeah, I think being able to limit the rights of the people I give the bread to is the best of all options. A real world example of this is low income housing, where the recipient isn't allowed to sublet their place, because that would be all sorts of fucked up. Obviously a game key is not anywhere near as big of a deal, but it is a similar principle if we want businesses to be able to open up to as many markets as possible (not just for their own sakes)

Are you limiting rights through the transaction as a sort of contract or doing so through government enforcement of all people? If the former case, then option 2 does appear to be the best option. If the latter, then option 2 appears to be worse than option 1.

Its a bit grayer than that. In this case generally it is option 1 (transaction contract when the key is originally given or sold). But then a third party comes in and makes a marketplace out of people breaking their contract and how you deal with THAT.

Its basically the Airbnb scenario.