I’m so absolutely sick of it.

  • Nighed@sffa.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have probably never ‘owned’ a computer game. Even when you had discs/cartridges you owned the disc/cartridge, but had a single license for the game.

    That’s why it was technically allowed to copy the disk for your own use, but not to share - you only had one license.

    Steam is the same, just without the disk.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Legally speaking, there is almost zero difference between a computer game disc/cartridge and a paper book. Are you so deluded as to argue that you don’t own your copies of books as well?

      Let’s face it: the situation today is the way it is because some software industry shysters saw the opportunity to pull one over on the courts (with technology-illiterate judges who think “X on a computer” is somehow suddenly different than “X” because ⋆˙⟡ magic ⟡˙⋆) and took it.

      • Nighed@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I did quote owned in that comment.

        Legally I think you own the book, but not it’s contents? So legally it would be the same? (The content is copyrighted so you can’t reproduce it etc)

        The real difference is in usage, with a book, even an ebook, if you have it you effectively own it. They can’t stop you reading it.

        Unfortunately with games nowerdays everything checks in with servers or is online only, so if the publisher or distributor say so, you lose access. The only way round that is cracked copies or DRM free games like on GoG.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Legally I think you own the book, but not it’s contents? So legally it would be the same? (The content is copyrighted so you can’t reproduce it etc)

          You own the book and you own your copy of its contents, but you don’t hold* the copyright.

          Why do people have such a hard time phrasing it clearly like that, and instead say things like “you don’t own the contents?”

          (* A copyright is a temporary monopoly privilege granted by Congress. It isn’t itself property and is therefore “held,” not “owned.”)

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Is the ownership of property in general not also just a “temporary monopoly privilege granted by Congress” or whatever the local legal authority is? If there were no laws protecting property rights, backed up by the power of some sort of government, those property rights would be meaningless.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, it’s not. In stark and diametric contrast to copyright, ownership of actual property is a natural right.

              Read the Constitution: copyright law has the express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” It is nothing more than a means to that end. And in particular, it is absolutely not, in any way whatsoever, some sort of entitlement for creators.

          • olmec@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have seen a few of your arguments, and it sounds like you are being very pedantic, and are totally ignoring the big picture entirely.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This came to be because people would hand discs to their friends who would then copy the disc and hand it back, resulting in widespread stealing of the game.

        People don’t generally photocopy books to give to others

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          resulting in widespread stealing of the game.

          That’s a lie. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing, and the difference is as meaningful as the difference between murder and rape.

          Quit using dishonest loaded language. I do not accept your framing of this debate.

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing

            Not exactly, but most people realize that there’s some significant overlap between the two and that distributing copies of works that you don’t have to right to is diluting something of value from the creators of those works.

            the difference is as meaningful as the difference between murder and rape

            I don’t know why you thought that comparison would help your stance here…I don’t know which one is murder and which one is rape, but neither one is okay.