PCGaming

6504 readers

1 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

208

After you die, your Steam games will be stuck in legal limbo (arstechnica.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Saw a article on a large number of gamers being over 55 and then I saw this which I believe needs to be addressed in our current laws.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

First of all, stop equating digital goods with physical goods.

No? I won't. They're both purchases. Or at least that's how they're sold.

And no, the compensation is not the disc.

Hence the sale of disc is equated with the sale of the license.

My guy, which one is it? Because it can't be both.

That is what is being sold as I stated before

Except it's not being "sold". If it was, you would own it, and you could do whatever you wanted with it, in perpetuity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Haven't seen someone slam dunk themselves in a while

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Alright, let's put it this way. You buy a disc with a license key to access its content. You copied the disc content AND the license key. Now, as you said, you own the disc and the software and license. Next, since you own it, you sell your disc for whatever reason. You own it right? So you can sell it. But, do you think you are still entitled to the data that you have copied beforehand?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I understand the complications of copyright infringement. The unfortunate reality is that lots of people feel entitled to any work that is reproducible, and they're going to get it. Shoveling in DRM, and serving media as a service, only serves to degrade the experience for paying consumers and actually encourages copyright infringement. Because why am I going to pay for a shitty experience when the pirate experience is so much better? Why am I going to pay the same amount of money for Netflix in 720p (because they don't support Linux) when I can get all the same content in 4k by pirating, and without using their shitty interface?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, that is the actual problem that I really wanted to discuss. A simple DRM like Steam I'd argue is not too obstructive but still solves the easy low hanging fruit of copy and pasting. So DRM can be made just to hinder those low hanging fruit because for people who don't understand technology, they can "accidentally" infringe upon copyright.

As I alluded to before, license keys are a perfect example of simple prevention of copy and pasting in the old days before the internet. At most those licenses will get to what? 50 people? But with the internet, the model breaks down because transferring data is easier than ever.

Those who are still entitled to wanting content for free will just sail the high seas anyways. But at least people will know that they cannot just copy and paste copyrighted digital goods. And this is why I said that I don't have a problem with DRM, it solves a problem of Digital Rights Management. My problem is when the DRM is overly restrictive and hinders actual users.

And yes, people are that ignorant. You and I may be well educated in this topic and the intricacies of the problems, why it exists in the first place, and other nuances. But can you say the same for your parents? Or the newer generations? Heck, if I remember correctly, even lending a movie is technically a copyright infringement (because the movie has to be viewed at the license owner house or something along those lines).

Now, I also said before that I do have problems with not being able to transfer my license but that was the term that I agreed to when purchasing. But I do think it is a problem that needs to be addressed by the law. There are so many things that need to be addressed and that is not my job. But, being ignorant on the topic deliberately is not helping either. Saying you own the software is misleading at best. If licenses can be just ignored, then Linux wouldn't get this far since companies can just copy it and not make the changes public since GPL too is a license.