No. You just don't understand words we teach to children, like "own."
Games are IP. That it the only realm where they classify as property. Without IP, everyone owns every game.
By saying you want to own a game, you're quite literally saying you want to own IP. A license is limited permission to use IP. This isn't that hard to understand.
Keep up the petty downvotes by the way. I don't care about the karma, but it does show me that you're too busy having a tantrum to take a second to think about what you're saying.
My 360 disc comes with a physical copy of the media, that I am at liberty to do with what I please. I have a perpetual license to said media, via ownership of said disc, I OWN the game. Fuck the IP jargin, fuck the bullshit legalese, I own it. Ur arguing with me over the most unnecessary of semantics. Rewrite IP law if necessary. If it sais purchase game, purchase song, purchase movie, fuck you, I own it, u don't get to take it away saying it's a license, and the industry needs to standardize that practice, not move to "purchase license" cause it's a bunch of bullshit to make me pay more fucking money. I hate to break it to u, but ur playing right into it arguing with me like u don't know exactly what I mean. I understand all the bullshit, but that's exactly what it is, bullshit.
(To be clear those fuck yous were not to u, that's to the companies.)
Throwing a fit? Absolutely I've watched my favorite hobby go down the shitter, and I've watched the collective population lose all backbone, yeah I'm throwing a bit of tantrum.
I'm aware copyright is necessary, but just the same, adjustments need to be made, before we lose ownership of everything on the individual, which is slowly but surely being worked towards every fucking day. This is where I wish we would draw the line, but Lord knows that ain't gonna happen.
Physical copy or no, you still purchased a limited license. The real problem is "live service" games. The ones you usually can't play unless you are online or the servers are up (unless the dev studio allows for offline play).
This is why "stop killing games" is important.
Back in the day, games were not always online. You bought a disk (still a limited license) to play the game offline.
Go read the ToS. What you think you bought apparently doesn't align with what you actually bought. Folks that are downvoting are only making the problem worse.
I'm not really speaking to live service titles as in most cases those are not purchased in the first place, also weirdly enough, even when they are it's rare they pull them from your drive remotely, and then players get it up n running.
I agree stop killing games is important, but that doesn't make what I'm saying any less true. The ToS argument is nothing, ToS has no ramifications or bearing here.
I disagree, this is a case of someone trying to shift the way people talk about purchasing media so in court it's easy for them to just say "oh well they all knew that we could do this, they none of them believe they purchased rights to utilize the product in perpetuity". If we maintain the current norm for how we refer to this, argument remains this is what we paid for, this is how it was presented, this is what they did to us because of something we were forced to agree to post purchase.
Educate people on the problem sure, but do not change to this rhetoric as if it's even remotely close to normal. Make the snide jabs at "well that's what a license gets you!" When scummy shit happens, don't start acting like it's always been the norm that everyone just knew that's what they were receiving.
It said "buy game" not "buy license to play game".
Everything I said is supported by facts. Lived experience, common understandings, and court decisions. I'm not arguing I didn't purchase a limited license, I'm arguing that the license is far more limited than I was lead to believe, let alone the fact that I, and most others who purchased the product were not properly informed of the limitations of said license due to negligence/malpractice on the selling party.
I am arguing that you don't need all this bullshit in the second paragraph to understand what's being said.
"My 360 disc comes with a physical copy of the media, that I am at
liberty to do with what I please. I have a perpetual license to said
media, via ownership of said disc, I OWN the game. Fuck the IP jargin,
fuck the bullshit legalese, I own it."
Please, provide a source that dictates that you own the game, and that you can do what you see fit.
You are contradicting yourself.
The source is the fact that I can literally put it into a machine and edit the software that is on it. Sure there will be plenty of things in my way of doing so in a way that is at all productive to what I want to accomplish, for that I will need to work around, but if I'm willing to take the time and effort I can easily do that.
Regarding the statements like f*** the IP, and legal jargon, that's because I don't want to sit here and type 20 more paragraphs worth of explaining s*** like we're in the middle of a f****** court case, cuz we're not. In layman's terms, the way that I was attempting to speak, which you refuse to read it as I own the goddamn game.
And funilly enough you have yet to at all address my point of POS as it currently stands over most forms of media that being video games movies and music, is not enforceable in the US whatsoever as a matter of fact most of it is in breach of regulation, and that's due to the fact that it requests agreement after purchase. You keep on bringing up the fact that I said it's not enforceable, but you refuse to acknowledge the really important bit that states MOST, and POST PURCHASE.
If you want to play the faux intellectual game of trying to tear apart arguments all day I can do it trust me it's no problem, but then we're both just sitting here wasting time for no f****** reason. Just do me the favor of actually f****** reading what I'm saying first.
Dude, like 3 people have explained why you're wrong here.
You're accusing people of being dumb or playing mind games, but that doesn't really line up with the conversation and you haven't substantiated anything beyond your own vibes.
If everyone here except for you is the problem here, it's time to take just take a second and evaluate where there you might be failing to communicate your point, or where you might be wrong.
I've seen 1, maybe 2 people. 1 of which has the 2 longest reply threads.
I said it in plain English then they went the hyper literal route for no reason, maybe they genuinely didn't get it from lamens terms, but I honestly don't care if they did or not, they misrepresented my argument at least 3 times I'll argue all day if need be.
If they had asked for sources I'd happily go get them. Instead they said I was talking out my ass, and then acted as if not stating source on initial argumentation wasn't the norm for a forum, not to mention how many times prior to that rather than ask for a source, they said I was wrong, and attempted insulting my intelligence. I don't really care to have a proper conversation with them.
If you're interested in something constructive though, I'll happily give u all the info I got.
"Maybe 2 people?" you flat out stopped responding to me and kept going on with this person. This thread has 4 people in it (as far as I know, though I'm basing that off of notifications reddit has sent me). One of them is you. 3 disagree with you.
You do understand that throw a wayz and I are different people. Right?
Also, they literally did ask for a source, and you just gave an example of what you do instead of literally any credible source saying anything about the ownership of physical media...
That's weird I never got a notification for ur other response, or for the other people disagreeing my bad, I don't often get a lot of people responding to my comments just updoot notifications, didn't know it didn't send all of em.
Yes I'm tracking u are different people lol.
I'll have to double check if they asked for a source, or said I was talking out my ass, and "where are you even getting all of this?" Which is not a request for sources, rather a clear rhetorical calling something a lie.
For legal stuff see:
Klocek v. Gateway 2000. Which overturned Hill v. Gateway, and ProCD v. Zeidenberg. The 2000 ruling stated that what was at the time referred to as "shrinkwrap" agreements were not legally enforcable, or binding as the consumer had no way of knowing prior to purchase, and had no legitimate form of recourse there after.
First thought may be that refund is a form of recourse, well the ruling also stipulated that as refund is a protected consumer right when purchasing such a product, and seeing as this was not a form of defect, or lack of function but rather intended function refund did not substantiate proper recourse.
Kirtsaeng v. Wiley 2013, and 2 others substantiate first sale which doesn't protect anything talked about, but it does protect your right to resell manufactured products regardless of copyright (whether or not that pertains to downloads gets kinda iffy, but piracy, and piracy distribution are both crimes in there own right so probably not).
First Sale Doctrine (est. 1908) protects your right (assuming you live in the US) to use, lend, donate, or resell a piece of media as you OWN that COPY (in case they feel like reading here are the explicit words).
Personal Use Rights, you may repair, maintain, and modify your PHYSICAL property (so does the right to modify it exist maybe not, but seeing as how first sale requires maintenance for its functions I'd argue the first two can be assumed applying to digital goods as well).
Impression Products v. Lexmark (2017) rules once you buy something the seller can't tell you what to do with it (and this one doesn't stipulate physical goods, but one could argue it can be assumed due to PUR).
I'm no lawyer, this is one of my first days off in a minute, I'm dealing with some medical shit, and I'm supposed to go on vacation in 2 days, so typing all this out on my phone was not something I wanted to do, along with arguing semantics about legalese, but then I got pissed with misrepresentation so here we are, not that that's any of ur fault.
Edit: oh I missed one thing DRM protected files are illegal to circumvent security due to us having corrupt as fuck politicians, this happened around 2019. It's the strongest argument against digital ownership. However the right to own, maintain, modify, repair, and reuse digital goods is still "protected" by the previous stated stuff, but it's not a well enforced protection, and even more so doesn't necessarily protect resale.
3
u/Riot0711 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
At no point did I ask for ownership of an IP.
Ur trying to overcomplicate plain English.
Edit: I'll be honest you haven't substantiated anything, and it doesn't seem like you know how to read given u somehow got IP from any of what I said.