5 ms·

> You don't own any games sold to you. False. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25371427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25371427 > You don't own any

by bmn__ 4y ago

> You don't own any games sold to you. False. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25371427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25371427 > You don't own any commercial, proprietary software sold to you. I do own the commodity good (here: copy of the game) that I bought.

eikenberry 4y ago
If you consider that owning it then you must not have a problem with Assassin's Creed servers going offline. You are saying you own it even with restrictions. If you accept limited ownership of software then you don't get to decide on those limits as a consumer. There are other examples of limited ownership (eg. animals), so I'm not going to try to dispute the terminology. I personally don't consider the idea of limited ownership of being of much use when dealing with copyright abuse.
- bmn__ 4y ago
  > Assassin's Creed servers going offline You were previously talking about licences and ownership of "any games". What you mentioned now is an orthogonal concept, and affects a subset of all games sold. Depriving me of the use of my purchased good that way is fraud, of course. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27348526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27348526>
  - eikenberry 4y ago
    Some aspects of the license covers "any games"... like not being able to sell copies. Some only impact games with an online component, like AC here. All these restrictions come from the license agreement you buy. You're purchased "good" was a license to use some software. That license defines the rules for using that software. If the license says they can remotely disable your game then they can remotely disable your game without violating the license or committing fraud. There is of course some question about the enforcement of licenses, particularly click through licenses, but the legal doubt doesn't help due to the arbitration clauses in those same licenses and/or challenging them in court being ridiculously expensive.
    - bmn__ 4y ago
      You completely ignored the existence of the law. It is tiresome to have to repeat myself.

by bmn__ 4y ago

eikenberry 4y ago

If you consider that owning it then you must not have a problem with Assassin's Creed servers going offline. You are saying you own it even with restrictions. If you accept limited ownership of software then you don't get to decide on those limits as a consumer. There are other examples of limited ownership (eg. animals), so I'm not going to try to dispute the terminology. I personally don't consider the idea of limited ownership of being of much use when dealing with copyright abuse.

bmn__ 4y ago
> Assassin's Creed servers going offline You were previously talking about licences and ownership of "any games". What you mentioned now is an orthogonal concept, and affects a subset of all games sold. Depriving me of the use of my purchased good that way is fraud, of course. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27348526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27348526>
- eikenberry 4y ago
  Some aspects of the license covers "any games"... like not being able to sell copies. Some only impact games with an online component, like AC here. All these restrictions come from the license agreement you buy. You're purchased "good" was a license to use some software. That license defines the rules for using that software. If the license says they can remotely disable your game then they can remotely disable your game without violating the license or committing fraud. There is of course some question about the enforcement of licenses, particularly click through licenses, but the legal doubt doesn't help due to the arbitration clauses in those same licenses and/or challenging them in court being ridiculously expensive.
  - bmn__ 4y ago
    You completely ignored the existence of the law. It is tiresome to have to repeat myself.