It's not another matter, its exactly the point: are the T&C's legitimate in significantly obstructing our rights to direct our possession? In the case of alledgedly selling LH miles despite forbidden by LH's terms, the courts preliminary ruling was "yes too obstructing" despite being laid out and accepted by the possessor. I'm torn here as I do believe in the legitimate interest of the owner trying o protect his property but I also find the deliberately misleading marketing language of "earning" irritating. We implicitly or explicitly paid with real money for, neutral term, getting the miles. What we earn in return is a fluid something that is accounted for as something with a value justifying an immediate and specific imposition (like taxes) but no direct value to direct for us. Not to forget that they don't call it renting miles but buying miles. The latter usually implies a transfer of ownership.
My apologies if I come across a little fuzzy, English is not my first language.
Great post!
With AA you actually 'own' the miles, but, under the
current language (which is vastly different from the one when I signed up in 1984), "the accumulation of mileage credit does not entitle members to any vested rights with respect to such mileage credits, awards or program benefits."
It would be helpful if you explained what it means -- it seems to me that you own the mileage credit (in its abstract form) but not the right to redeem it for anything of value. In other words, you 'own' a number on a computer screen.