8 ms·

if buying isn't owning then pirating isn't stealing

georgeplusplus 2y ago
Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. I’m so pro physical media it’s ridiculous that people can’t be bothered to go in a store and get a copy. They will only care when they get locked out of their account and realize that when steam says you really don’t own your games that they weren’t bluffing.
- YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
  Are you saying that it’s due to laziness that some $12 strategy game from Eastern Europe that might sell 1000 copies worldwide doesn’t have copies in every Best Buy?
  - pajeets 2y ago
    That is the "digital media & software is a rivalrous good therefore not paying for it is stealing" argument that copyright lobbyists have preached to Americans since the "You wouldn't download a car" campaign in the early 2000s
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  Buying physical media is still renting if it uses any sort of internet validation or online check, because those servers aren't guaranteed to always be online in the immediate or far future.
  - threecheese 2y ago
    Especially with shared key material that has an expiry in that future, that consumers aren’t aware of or wouldn’t understand if they were.
- pajeets 2y ago
  I must respectfully disagree with your assertion. The non-rivalrous nature of software, as established in numerous legal precedents (see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010)), fundamentally alters the traditional concept of ownership in the digital realm. While your preference for physical media is duly noted, it fails to account for the evolving landscape of digital rights management (DRM) and end-user license agreements (EULAs). The legal framework surrounding digital distribution platforms like Steam is predicated on a licensing model, not a transfer of ownership per se. Your concern about account lockouts, while not entirely unfounded, overlooks the myriad benefits of digital distribution, including but not limited to: reduced environmental impact, instant access, automatic updates, and cloud saves. Furthermore, it disregards the legal protections afforded to consumers under various jurisdictions' consumer protection laws. In conclusion, while your nostalgia for physical media is understandable, it does not negate the legal and practical realities of modern software distribution. The non-rivalrous nature of software necessitates a different paradigm of ownership and access, one that the current legal and technological frameworks are still grappling with.
  - georgeplusplus 2y ago
    I don't give two ears of corn about your sassy ivory tower response. The fact I can resell my physical games and trade/share gives me all the proof i need on ownership.
- kbolino 2y ago
  Very few places sell PC games on physical media anymore and most games don't even have physical media made for PCs in the first place anymore. PC games sold on physical media were already dying 15 years ago, before Steam really took off. Major retailers had already begun drastically downsizing the PC game section, and a lot of games released for consoles first, with PC editions being half-assed ports released much later, if they came out at all. The modern resurgence in PC gaming only exists because of digital distribution. "Just buy your PC games in the store" hasn't been a viable option in a long time. There is GOG as a DRM-free option at least, if you want to truly have a copy that can't be taken from you.
falcolas 2y ago
Well, the government owns all of the land, so by that logic you should just steal whatever land you want, right? 43 CFR 2920
- hoppp 2y ago
  Land can't be duplicated for free
- pajeets 2y ago
  Non-rivalrous means that a good can be used by multiple people at the same time without reducing the amount available to others. By nature, digital licenses are non-rivalrous. This means it can be used by multiple people at the same time without diminishing their quality or quantity. For example, a fireworks display is non-rivalrous because everyone can enjoy it without affecting the quality of the show. Likewise, software can be enjoyed by everyone without affecting the quality of the life of the producer or its content and there is no indication that piracy can limit the latter and former.
  - timeon 2y ago
    > fireworks display is non-rivalrous because everyone can enjoy it Sorry for OT, but if we are talking about enjoying it the it is everyone except all other animals.
    - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
      Plenty of humans don't enjoy fireworks either, and by nature that's tough luck - others who enjoy them won't consult you and will make it your problem. I hate them mostly for sensory reasons, plus I find the pollution/litter irritating, and quite often the thing being celebrated with fireworks is innately problematic too.
  - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
    Likewise, software can be enjoyed by everyone without affecting the quality of the life of the producer or its content and there is no indication that piracy can limit the latter and former. So if I produce paid software as my sole livelihood and income, there is "no indication" that piracy of my work output could limit my quality of life? I will concede that pirated copies are not made up 100% of lost sales in this scenario as long as other people will also reasonably concede that the number is probably not 0% either.
II2II 2y ago
If a vendor says that you bought something in the big print, then claims that you acutally paid for a revokable license in the small print, then I (personally) don't have much of a problem with someone pirating a copy to maintain access for what they paid for. After all, they convinced someone to pay for something through misrepresentation. That said, even with that qualification, I doubt the law would agree with that position. That said, the author should have the right to decide the terms of sale (at least for luxury items) as long as they aren't misrepresenting the sale. If the button says something to the effect of "Buy Revokable License Now!", or something equally clear, instead of "Buy Now!" then the customer knows what they are getting into. They can either choose to pay for it, knowing they may lose access in the future, or they may choose not to pay for it since they view the terms as unacceptable.
surgical_fire 2y ago
This is the correct answer. Ironically, once again, piracy provides the best service.
satvikpendem 2y ago
Piracy was never stealing in the first place.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Piracy is infringement. And only in the legal sense, not the moral sense
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Indeed, copyright infringement is not stealing.
- benoau 2y ago
  Conversely, revoking licenses is certainly stealing!

Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. I’m so pro physical media it’s ridiculous that people can’t be bothered to go in a store and get a copy. They will only care when they get locked out of their account and realize that when steam says you really don’t own your games that they weren’t bluffing.

YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
Are you saying that it’s due to laziness that some $12 strategy game from Eastern Europe that might sell 1000 copies worldwide doesn’t have copies in every Best Buy?
- pajeets 2y ago
  That is the "digital media & software is a rivalrous good therefore not paying for it is stealing" argument that copyright lobbyists have preached to Americans since the "You wouldn't download a car" campaign in the early 2000s
ThunderSizzle 2y ago
Buying physical media is still renting if it uses any sort of internet validation or online check, because those servers aren't guaranteed to always be online in the immediate or far future.
- threecheese 2y ago
  Especially with shared key material that has an expiry in that future, that consumers aren’t aware of or wouldn’t understand if they were.
pajeets 2y ago
I must respectfully disagree with your assertion. The non-rivalrous nature of software, as established in numerous legal precedents (see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010)), fundamentally alters the traditional concept of ownership in the digital realm. While your preference for physical media is duly noted, it fails to account for the evolving landscape of digital rights management (DRM) and end-user license agreements (EULAs). The legal framework surrounding digital distribution platforms like Steam is predicated on a licensing model, not a transfer of ownership per se. Your concern about account lockouts, while not entirely unfounded, overlooks the myriad benefits of digital distribution, including but not limited to: reduced environmental impact, instant access, automatic updates, and cloud saves. Furthermore, it disregards the legal protections afforded to consumers under various jurisdictions' consumer protection laws. In conclusion, while your nostalgia for physical media is understandable, it does not negate the legal and practical realities of modern software distribution. The non-rivalrous nature of software necessitates a different paradigm of ownership and access, one that the current legal and technological frameworks are still grappling with.
- georgeplusplus 2y ago
  I don't give two ears of corn about your sassy ivory tower response. The fact I can resell my physical games and trade/share gives me all the proof i need on ownership.
kbolino 2y ago
Very few places sell PC games on physical media anymore and most games don't even have physical media made for PCs in the first place anymore. PC games sold on physical media were already dying 15 years ago, before Steam really took off. Major retailers had already begun drastically downsizing the PC game section, and a lot of games released for consoles first, with PC editions being half-assed ports released much later, if they came out at all. The modern resurgence in PC gaming only exists because of digital distribution. "Just buy your PC games in the store" hasn't been a viable option in a long time. There is GOG as a DRM-free option at least, if you want to truly have a copy that can't be taken from you.

falcolas 2y ago

Well, the government owns all of the land, so by that logic you should just steal whatever land you want, right? 43 CFR 2920

hoppp 2y ago
Land can't be duplicated for free
pajeets 2y ago
Non-rivalrous means that a good can be used by multiple people at the same time without reducing the amount available to others. By nature, digital licenses are non-rivalrous. This means it can be used by multiple people at the same time without diminishing their quality or quantity. For example, a fireworks display is non-rivalrous because everyone can enjoy it without affecting the quality of the show. Likewise, software can be enjoyed by everyone without affecting the quality of the life of the producer or its content and there is no indication that piracy can limit the latter and former.
- timeon 2y ago
  > fireworks display is non-rivalrous because everyone can enjoy it Sorry for OT, but if we are talking about enjoying it the it is everyone except all other animals.
  - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
    Plenty of humans don't enjoy fireworks either, and by nature that's tough luck - others who enjoy them won't consult you and will make it your problem. I hate them mostly for sensory reasons, plus I find the pollution/litter irritating, and quite often the thing being celebrated with fireworks is innately problematic too.
- mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
  Likewise, software can be enjoyed by everyone without affecting the quality of the life of the producer or its content and there is no indication that piracy can limit the latter and former. So if I produce paid software as my sole livelihood and income, there is "no indication" that piracy of my work output could limit my quality of life? I will concede that pirated copies are not made up 100% of lost sales in this scenario as long as other people will also reasonably concede that the number is probably not 0% either.

II2II 2y ago

If a vendor says that you bought something in the big print, then claims that you acutally paid for a revokable license in the small print, then I (personally) don't have much of a problem with someone pirating a copy to maintain access for what they paid for. After all, they convinced someone to pay for something through misrepresentation. That said, even with that qualification, I doubt the law would agree with that position. That said, the author should have the right to decide the terms of sale (at least for luxury items) as long as they aren't misrepresenting the sale. If the button says something to the effect of "Buy Revokable License Now!", or something equally clear, instead of "Buy Now!" then the customer knows what they are getting into. They can either choose to pay for it, knowing they may lose access in the future, or they may choose not to pay for it since they view the terms as unacceptable.

surgical_fire 2y ago

This is the correct answer. Ironically, once again, piracy provides the best service.

satvikpendem 2y ago

Piracy was never stealing in the first place.

whamlastxmas 2y ago
Piracy is infringement. And only in the legal sense, not the moral sense
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Indeed, copyright infringement is not stealing.
benoau 2y ago
Conversely, revoking licenses is certainly stealing!