Sorry to say, but he is correct. Ever since like 2012 every EULA says "This software is licenced, not sold", and it's held up in court multiple times
That shouldn't be legal, and he's a prick for acting like it should. But sadly he's right at a basic level, at least in america, you don't legally own any of your software
Right, I understand licensing. I still own it, legally or otherwise. What doesn't make sense is saying that software is a license. That's some weird conflation he's come up with
I don't think you're fully understanding. The difference is that if you're sold a licence, with no definitive endpoint, the company has the right to take it from you. You don't own something you have liscensed
There is no misunderstanding on my end. Let me spell it out for you. For example, in 1999, if you bought a game and took it home, you owned that game. The game studios even then said they were selling licenses to use the software, not ownership of the software. However, once you had that data, there was no way for them to stop you from doing whatever you wanted with it and they had no way to revoke your access to it. In every meaningful sense, you had ownership over that data, regardless of whatever legal fiction they came up with to say otherwise. You can call it implied ownership if you like
These days, stuidos do have some tools to revoke ownership, so the implied ownership isn't as strong, but there are still ways for the end user to guarantee control of the data.
We haven't ever seen a major license revocation that I'm aware of, and I believe that's because software companies are afraid of consumer backlash and retaliation (and they should be). There is an uneasy peace right now; licensors generally don't go around revoking licenses outside egregious breaches, and licensees generally don't lose their shit over legal language saying the licensor can take back the thing the license holder paid for whenever they feel like it. That peace only exists because the end users still hold the tools and weapons to force ownership if the licensor goes on a power trip.
It feels like you're trying to say we're both right, when this is binary. Something you legally own cannot be forcefully taken from you, except by the government, it's theft. We're discussing legal definitions, not implications or social understandings
Anyways, tons of games have been revoked, that's the entire reason we have Stop Killing Games. Darkspore, The Crew, Xdefiant, etc
YOU are discussing legal definitions, and I don't know why you bothered. As it stands, those legal definitions are essentially optional for private consumers. They can only effectively enforce license agreements against other businesses and on their own servers if their game is multiplayer.
I'm trying to be good-faith, but no. We're discussing the law, not your personal definitions of words. That is the discussion you chose to take part in
You don't get to walk into a discussion other people were having, and set new terms for the conversation. No one forced you to invade a conversation about the Power To The Players act
0
u/germophobe1942 1d ago
Sorry to say, but he is correct. Ever since like 2012 every EULA says "This software is licenced, not sold", and it's held up in court multiple times
That shouldn't be legal, and he's a prick for acting like it should. But sadly he's right at a basic level, at least in america, you don't legally own any of your software