100
US Rep proposes bill to give video game buyers "ownership," not "a license" (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 hours ago by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4 points 59 minutes ago (1 child)

We already have it. The copyright-cartel shysters who write bunk EULAs have simply been lying to us the whole time.

But if Congress wants to reiterate it, that's fine by me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 37 minutes ago

    This is more akin to the Stop Killing Games initiatives' goals than a reiteration of current rules.

    When you pay for a game, you should own it. Consumers must have the right to own, the right to play, and the right to transfer the games they buy. A game that can be taken away the moment a company pulls the plug is not a purchase. It is a rental disguised as a sale. Families in the Bronx and across the country save up to buy these games, and they deserve better than a license that can vanish at any time. The Power To The Players Act ensures consumers own what they buy and can keep playing long after a company moves on.

    Depending on how the actual bill is worded, this might even force DRM-free copies to be sold on 3rd party storefronts like Steam, if it also applies to PC games, but at the very least it would put the kibosh on all of the "physical games" that're just a code in a jewel case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 9 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    My position is that if you can’t do what you want with the thing that you “bought”, then you don’t own it. You’ve leased it.

    Therefore, the company that owns it is responsible for property taxes and civil liability for anything related to ownership of the item/vehicle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •