this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
667 points (97.2% liked)
Sysadmin
7664 readers
101 users here now
A community dedicated to the profession of IT Systems Administration
No generic Lemmy issue posts please! Posts about Lemmy belong in one of these communities:
!lemmy@lemmy.ml
!lemmyworld@lemmy.world
!lemmy_support@lemmy.ml
!support@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hold up, what?
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.
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.
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.
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.")
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You're fuckin weird man.
Steam doeen't sell games to you, it gives you access to them in your account. Everyone hated them for it back when it first came out, twenty years ago, but it's kind of forgotten by anyone who isn't nestled deeply into the privacy/ownership/right to repair communities these days.
You can still lose access to your thousand game + account by simply updating your drivers regularly.
Steam is lying -- you do own the games. The problem is that the courts are too corrupted by the copyright cartel to enforce the laws properly.
Just because they push that self-serving disinformation doesn't mean we have to parrot it!
Oh you mean in the way the world should work. Sure, i'll agree with that.
But that's not how things actually are. Right now, you can completely lose access, and unless you're a lucky millionaire with a passion for fighting unjust laws and the luck of the gods, you can't do shit to bring that account back.
But even if you lose access to the Steam account, you still own your copy of the games. Valve doesn't have the right to somehow force you to stop playing the games, assuming you still have your copy in your possession.
Remember, products (e.g. a copy of a game) and services (e.g. a Steam account itself) are two different things. I was never arguing that you owned a service, only that you own products.
Yeah. Steam can disable your account so you can not purchase new games, but you should still be able to download and play the games you already have.
Genuine question. My assumption here is that if they disable your account that you can no longer log into it to download those games. Accurate or inaccurate assumption? How does it actually work? I know I SHOULD be able to download them, but can I actually if they disable the account?
I haven't seen a situation where they completely lock an account full of games, where the person who purchased those games can never access them again. The guy above is being overdramatic.
They CAN "VAC" ban your account, though. That does not deny you access to your account in any way, and will not prevent you from playing the games online or offline* as much as you want. The VAC part of the ban is that you cannot use any Valve run servers on games that use Valve to run their servers, like TF2, DOTA, Counterstrike, Left 4 Dead, etc.
You can still play the aforementioned games online, BUT after the ban you can only play on non-VAC secured servers (aka player servers that are more likely to have rampant cheating). The ban DOES NOT remove the game from your account, delete your account, block your access to the offline portion of the game unless, I suppose, the game has an always online element that uses VAC.
*One of the annoying DRM "features" of Steam is that you can play any of your games offline as long as you log in online at least (I think) once a week or so.
Purchasing ban does exist. Seen it on Steam forum itself.
You can still download and play the game even though they disable the account.
A VAC ban doesn't remove access to your steam account. Just to one game on your steam account.
Well, that and all the games that instban you from playing if you have a vac ban on record, first example being various squad servers, and the software behind that.
Being banned from accessing services isn't the same as being prohibited from using your property. You are still perfectly legally entitled to play your game single-player (for example) no matter how many VAC bans you get.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with steam or valve....
Vac bans don't ban your steam account, just prevents you from playing CS2/CSGO
Why are you surprised about this? You always get a license to play the game, you don't own the rights to it, even if you get a physical copy.
That's what the copyright cartel claims, but it's a goddamn lie. Stop serving the enemy by parroting their lies.
It is not a lie, it is how copyright works.
If you are against it, then be against it. But do not claim they are lying.
This is why things like CC-BY-SA, copyleft and other licenses exist.
No, copyleft licenses work differently. In particular, the thing that makes them valid (in contrast to EULAs, which are not) is that they actually offer consideration to the licensee.
Take the GPL v2 (which I mention because I'm most familiar with it) as an example:
What it's doing there is affirming the user's ownership -- not mere "licensure" -- of his own copy. It's pointing out, in contrast to the lie of EULAs, that the licensor doesn't have any right to restrict the copy owner's property rights. In other words, you don't have to "accept the GPL" in order to use GPL software that somebody gives you; the license only kicks in if you want to do something with it that copyright law itself otherwise prohibits, namely, distributing copies or publishing modifications.
What EULA writers think they rely on -- and what they've managed to bamboozle some, but not all, courts into accepting -- is the notion that because computer programs require copying into RAM (if not also installation into a hard drive) to use, that that incidental act of copying somehow entitles publishers to impose additional restrictions in "consideration" for the mere use of the copy the user already bought. In reality, however, there's an explicit carve-out in 17 U.S. Code § 117 (a) (1) that pulls the rug out of that argument and renders most shrinkwrap and clickwrap EULAs total bunk because the owner already has the right to use his property and there is therefore no consideration. (Admittedly, Steam might be an exception to this, since Valve could try to argue that keeping track of your games for you and making them available to re-download whenever you want is "valuable consideration" -- but that's the exception, not the rule.)
(Also note that there are other problems with the validity of EULAs, such as the fact that they're contracts of adhesion, but I'm tired of writing so I'll leave that for another time.)
TL;DR: Copyleft licenses are valid because they offer the copy owner privileges they didn't already have: namely, permission to distribute copies under certain conditions. In contrast, EULAs are bunk because they attempt to restrict mere use of the thing the copy owner already owns while offering nothing in return.
You are wrong. If you buy a physical copy of a game, you cannot legally make further copies of that game. You can only sell the single copy you own, which is the licensed copy
You're confusing copyright law with property law. Sure, you can't make and sell copies (fun fact: you can make copies for certain other purposes, though), but that's not a limitation on what you can do with your own copy, which is your property.
Ownership of the right to copy and ownership of the copy itself are entirely different things.
I'm not confusing copyright law and property law, but you are deliberately conflating them so you can say things like "That's what the copyright cartel claims, but it's a goddamn lie." in response to someone saying that owning a copy of something does not give you the rights to that thing.
The copyright cartel claims you don't own your copy. That's a lie: you do own your copy. Owning a copy of something does, in fact, give you all the rights to that copy, so claiming it doesn't is wrong.
Nobody here is debating if you own the physical copy or not. You're debating the difference between owning a copy and having the rights to it.
No, that's a property right.
Clearly, you're the one failing to understand the difference!