memes

hideshow 40 child comments

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 3 months ago

I prefer the version that has OpenAI and Anthropic shooting Valve.

parent

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -61 points 3 months ago (38 children)

Valve started it. Valve invented the "we can violate copyright laws because it's on a computer". Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.

It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.

hideshow 38 child comments

parent

[–] tyler@programming.dev 102 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They did not invent that lol. Music companies did.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -74 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Music companies weren't selling games.

parent

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 60 points 3 months ago

What a blind distinction

parent

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 31 points 3 months ago

In a legal sense, media is media. The laws were established for music before digital games were mainstream, and were then applied to games.

parent

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 58 points 3 months ago (7 children)

The iTunes Store is older than the Steam Store.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -59 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Itunes didn't sell games.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 49 points 3 months ago (1 child)

The argument is about digital goods not just video games, but for the record they absolutely did.

parent

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -46 points 3 months ago*

You didn't read your own link. From your own Wikipedia link: First game released in 2006. 2 years after Steam.

"the argument isn't about games"? Then where is the non gaming publisher in the OP gif above?

parent

[–] tyler@programming.dev 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They most definitely did. Maybe you should learn about the stuff you’re talking about before posting things that are completely wrong.

parent

https://www.macworld.com/article/181577/ipodgames-2.html

[+] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -36 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Maybe you should look up history before downvoting:

First game on itunes was 2006- 3 years after Steam.

parent

[–] tyler@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago

I do not see what your link has to do with your comment. iTunes did sell games, your comment was factually incorrect.

parent

[–] Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 months ago

Books aren't games, either, but you brought them up. Why are different forms of media valid when they support your argument but not when they don't?

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago (17 children)

Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.

show me evidence that they took games away from users after they were purchased and didn't give refunds back to.

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] domdanial@reddthat.com 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Any time someone gets an account ban. Now sometimes those are for a good reason, but it still removes access to purchased content, as steam is the gatekeeper to access them.

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

don't be a scrote then?

parent

[–] sznowicki@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (9 children)

It’s about reselling them. You cannot sell your game on steam. EU made a law that requires is and then Steam converted everyone’s purchases into licenses.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (8 children)

I've never resold games. I still have Kings Quest 3 in the original box, disks, and paperwork.

why would I sell games?

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

You might not sell games, but other people do especially if they don't like a game.

Now the game just sits in a virtual library unplayed. If there was a way to sell, or loan, a game license to a friend or something, that'd be cool.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

guess I just don't care about the cost. I don't buy launch titles. if I don't like a game I just give it away to someone and chalk the cost up to learning to never buy from that developer again.

parent

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

And how do you give away a digital game?

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

I filter it out because I don't give a shit?

1000004266

parent

[–] nagaram@startrek.website 1 point 3 months ago

So this doesn't feel like an issue to me because its a digital download.

This means we know an infinite number of these games could be made. There is no scarcity issue at hand. So my digital copy sitting unplayed doesn't remove from someone else's ability to play. Therefore I don't really care that I don't play those games.

Also, invite your friends over for a lan party

parent

[–] sznowicki@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

Looking at your comments intellectual quality you also never sold a house. That doesn’t mean it would be ok to convert everyone’s property into leasing.

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

I'm genuinely sad for you.

not only did you waste your time reading through my comment history, you also thought that your weak attempt at wit would somehow inflame or irritate.

it's clear you didn't learn anything about me because if you had, you would have known that I need to care about your opinion for it to matter to me.

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

1000003997

parent

[–] sznowicki@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago

I didn’t.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-removes-game-order-of-war-challenge-from-user-libraries/

parent

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

If I don't let you resell something you bought that's ownership. I'm not talking about illegal copies. I'm talking about transferring the license to play the content you purchased.

If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that's not ownership.

How about you buy a house, then when you go to sell it, the builder says you can't. Or you are living in a house that you bought and 5 years later the builder says, we are taking your house back, here is what you paid for it.

That's not ownership.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

If I don't let you resell something you bought that's ownership.

TIL people with organ transplants don't own the organs they bought.

TIL people with pacemakers don't own their hearts.

If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that's not ownership.

so has steam ever taken games from users? I mean, I have games no longer offered through the store. hell, I bought game keys from Amazon for games that aren't sold in store anymore and added them to my steam library. so please tell me how I don't own my games by your definitions.

your only proof is from a decade ago and you clearly didn't read it. because if you had read it, you would have seen this little tidbit.

1000004271

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

people with organ transplants don't own the organs they bought.

You didn't buy the organ you got transplanted because federal law prohibits all organ sales.

TIL people with pacemakers don't own their hearts.

??? A pacemaker is device implanted to maintain regular rhythm. If you purchased one from the manufacturer, you could sell it to someone else.

"Only multi player content"

So content was removed.

parent

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

You didn't buy the organ you got transplanted because federal law prohibits all organ sales.

so you don't own your organs, and thus have no rights.

content that was removed by the original developer, not steam.

parent

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago

Ownership of your person which includes your organs is covered under constitutional rights, not property rights.

parent

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 18 points 3 months ago*

Valve invented the "we can violate copyright laws because it's on a computer"

That stunt was invented by the music industry first. It was a hit with publishers. Valve helped the publishers do the same shit with video games and it's still awful, but they weren't the inventors.

It boils down to the same issues of predatory copyright laws that have been perverted into a twisted mockery of the good intentions they were initially supposed to serve.

parent

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

What copyright law did valve violate?

I can only assume that you think that copyright law are laws granting rights to copy holders, rather than laws granting the rights to the creator to control who can make copies.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

That a new law was created to say "if it's on a computer you don't have rights" doesn't mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It's the same as the current anti repair laws.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

What law?
The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren't sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it's use, and you can't sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.

I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

The law you linked is 100 years old

Laws don't expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?

Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn't ruled until 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.

because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do)

You aren't necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.

The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn't necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn't a law. That's why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don't think you're even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?

Again, what law is being broken by steam?
First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.

We can't just say that they're breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.

parent

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.

It absolutely did not say that.

17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).

Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don't apply because you bought a "license".

But that doesn't change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.

Court rulings aren't law.

parent

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 months ago*

The first link you sent, that I keep talking about, said in the first paragraph that it is 100 yo and superceded 50 years ago:

Regarding 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which is what superceded it, the 2010 version does mention computer programs but does not mention games except for coin operated games. It doesn't grant you the right to copy (which digit transfer does) and more importantly 109(d) explicit says the right doesn't extend to people who possess the software by means of rental/lease/loan/otherwise without acquiring ownership of it, which is exactly the exemption about selling licenses instead of copies, that these digital stores use to deprive you of ownership. It clearly exempts steam's whole model.
Checking the most recent version (2024) leaves this pretty much unchanged.

I agree with you that this is bad, but that doesn't make it illegal.
However we need to be careful that this doesn't fuck FOSS software, which relies heavily on license enforcement.