You're viewing a single thread.
I can see the other argument though I don't agree with it.
Paying is obtaining a license to use a product. You own the license for as long as that payment is valid. If the validity of the license expires for some reason, you no longer have rights to use the product, whether you physically have it or not.
The difference is in licensing. Having a license to use a product that someone else created.
This is becoming a much more prevalent theme especially in computing. With physical goods, for the most part, ownership/possession of the item implies that you own the required rights to operate, use, or otherwise possess that item. Usually a license doesn't physically exist, it's more of a concept that is inexorably tied to the thing. With software however, the idea of license keys exists. If you have a license key for software, you can use the software regardless of where you got it from. Since the software can be copied, moved, duplicated, etc. The source of the actual bits the compose the software that runs doesn't matter. As long as you have a valid license key, you "own" a valid license to use the software which you paid for.
With online platforms, including, but not limited to, steam, epic Games store, Ubisoft connect, whatever.... They manage your licenses, and coordinate downloads for you, etc. The one thing I'm aware of with steam that's a benefit here is that you can get your product keys from the program and store them separately if you wish.
The problem is that not all platforms support the same format of product keys, especially for games. There's no universal licensing standard. This makes it tricky to have a product key that works where you want it to.
There's layers to this, and bluntly, unless there's wording in the license agreement that it can be revoked, terminated, invalidated, or otherwise made non-functional at the discretion of the developer that issued it, they actually can't revoke your ownership of a game, or at least the license for that game.
Application piracy (specifically for games), is when you play something without a license to do so.
They've stacked the entire system against you. Using wording in their license agreements that allows them to invalidate your license whenever they want to, and gives you no means to appeal that decision. Setting you up for litigation for piracy by using a software that you paid for when that license is revoked.
It's an insane thing to happen in my mind and there should be legislation put in place that obligates companies to offer a permanent, and irrevocable, license to software (looking at you Adobe), and also makes it much harder for companies to revoke that license. In addition, there should be a standardized licensing system, owned and operated independently from the license issuers, which manages and oversees the distribution, authentication and authorization of those licenses for them and you, something like humble bundle's system or something, where you can get license keys compatible with various platforms which can supply the software that constitutes the game you have a license for.
It should go beyond gaming.
Until such a time that the legal part of this is figured out, we'll be left with an unfair playing field, legally speaking, and piracy will be a way to have the software without a license (which is arguably illegal).
I don't like this system. I didn't ask for it. I think it should change. But legally, piracy is still illegal. The system is consumer hostile, and unfair. That fact, in and of itself, should merit something to be done about it. So far, nothing has even been proposed by governments. I'm hoping the EU makes the first move on this, and everyone follows suit. I can see them doing it too.
Or we just go back to the old way; where a company sells a product and consumers just own it. Why does a static piece of software/video require a license? Updates used to be optional, but then company's started selling broken stuff and writing out exclusions until we had no other options.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but license keys for software have existed for a very long time.
License keys also don't always represent an application or software, they extend the rights of use beyond the initial purchase.
As a simple example, you can get license keys for Windows that do not change what version of Windows is installed or how it operates. I work in IT, and when setting up remote access systems, we need to buy remote desktop license keys to allow users to connect. You're not getting anything you couldn't otherwise, but you're allowed to have more people connected at a time while the system is running.
There's similar examples across the board, this is just one that's pretty fresh in my mind right now. One of my clients is hitting the limit of their RD licensing.
For less complex software, like games, there used to be a physical component, usually an installer disk or something that would need to be validated when the game launches (though disk burning made this ineffective). With digital resources it's nearly impossible to validate someone has a licence without some kind of license key system in place.
I'll say again, I see their argument here. I don't necessarily agree with any of it.
IMO, it's a challenging subject, and one that we the people, via our elected representatives, should be pushing for legal representation on, by implementing laws that govern how all this works and limiting how much companies like Ubisoft can fuck us over because it's Tuesday, and that made them mad.
The old way was that you owned a disc or cartridge (or cassette tape) with an instance of the program on it. That's going to need a new definition that everyone can agree on.
Yeah a disc or cartridge with a license attached to it. So if you sold the disc you also sold the license. With digital distribution if you sell the files and transfer it to someone you technically made a copy. Which is not allowed since you don’t own the copyright.
...sort of. If your disc got scratched that somehow destroyed your license, and you had to buy another one.
Because the makers aren’t selling you the software or the video. They are selling you the rights to consume it. The reason for that is that software, movies and books can be easily copied and redistributed.
When that stuff was on a physical medium it was also sold with the same license. You would own the disc/tape/book with the license but you wouldn’t own the movie, software or literary work. You can sell the disc with the license but you can’t take the content of the disc and sell it separately since that is technically copying and you don’t own the copyright.
I think the point of the saying is that they don't recognize the licensing a consumer product as a valid exchange of money for goods or services.