The relevant section is blunt. “The Software is licensed to you, not sold,” the EULA states. “You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for.”
The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony’s EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.
They are going to stop using ‘buy’ and ‘own’ in their advertising then, right?
If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing.
What is piracy then?
Open sourcing of operational licenses.
It’s definitely stealing. I don’t understand why people on here can’t admit it to themselves.
My guess is people here think that stealing is wrong, no matter what. They also think that piracy is moral. Because of that, they incorrectly deduce that piracy isn’t stealing.
Look up any definition of stealing, and it always boils down to: taking something that you don’t have permission to take.
No, this isn’t limited to physical items. Companies steal our data all the time.
I think people need to shift from “Piracy isn’t stealing” to “Fuck the corps, they don’t wanna play fair I’ll steal their shit and they won’t see a penny”
It’s definitely stealing
It’s definitely denying money to someone who is asking to be paid.
But since they, nor anyone else is affected by the copying activity I don’t think it can be called stealing.
How about
“Fuck the corps, they don’t wanna play fair I’ll
stealuse their shit and they won’t see a penny”You can make up definitions all you want, it’s still stealing.
Piracy doesn’t fit the definition of stealing, because the owners still have the property.
That’s literally wrong. If I stole all your personal data from your laptop, you’d still have it.
Companies steal trade secrets from each other all the time. That doesn’t mean the knowledge just leaves the other company.
Stop making up definitions and just accept that it’s stealing. Just because it’s stealing doesn’t make it wrong.
If you copied all my personal data from my laptop, I’d still have it.
If you stole it I wouldn’t.
Companies steal trade secrets from each other all the time.
If you copy a secret then it is no longer a secret, so something has changed for the original owner.
Stop making up definitions and just accept that it’s stealing.
You are the one changing the definition of stealing to try and apply it to piracy.
stealing /ˈstiːlɪŋ/ noun
the action or offence of taking another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.
It’s also stealing when companies take back the games without giving the money back to customers. And stealing when they are blocking legal backups with DRM.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn;t theft.
obtaining games through unauthorised means
If games are going to have DRM, collect our data through unauthorized means, and be randomly taken away without our authorization, then exactly what social contract are we upholding?
Don’t buy PlayStation, got it.
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.
If it wasn’t, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.
Because that’s what actually owning software means.
And video games are software.
PlayStation:
The Software is licensed to you, not sold
Windows 95:
The software product is licensed, not sold
https://www.scribd.com/document/478767349/Windows-95-License-Agreement
I know it’s a joke no one ever read them…
But you all really never knew this?
Edit:
Don’t make me wheel out the 1980s CRT TV for the class…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
There’s always been freeware and shareware (yes, they’re different) but if you as an individual paid money for software at any point, you’ve never owned it.
Businesses can’t even justify the expense of “owning” basic stuff like Microsoft Office and collectively spend billions. “Owning” software is fucking expensive, and usually means you coded it.
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software,** including physical.**
Bolded for those that aren’t getting it.
Even if you buy a disc, that does not guarantee you can play the game in the future. Often games have to be authenticated on install, and if that authenticating server is no longer online, you can’t play the game–even if you have all the files required to play it.
Europe had a whole “Stop Killing Games” initiative that would require companies to unlock games they are no longer supporting, but that mysteriously vanished from the legislative docket after meetings with game companies that organizers weren’t invited to.
Stay mad, but you need to be mad at the right things.
Kind of funny how Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem and they’ll be here after it’s all done. You put that cartridge into your console, and you can play it. It may be version 1.0, but you can play it. And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them. It’ll cost $70 a decade from now, but it’ll run after you pay it lol
Steam users: First time?
To be fair, i recall Steam and GOG said that in case of a platform shutdown or if a game from your library is delisted, they can provide you a copy of the game files that you can keep and use.
The Sony policy is much more shady.
in very limited terms I think Valve might fully remove games (like the crypto miner one) from accounts but other then that if you bought it you own it as far as I’ve seen with Steam. I have transformers devastation which was delisted, and while the achievements won’t really show up on my account iirc, and I can’t sell the card drops on the market, I can still install and play it fine
Nah see my other comment. You don’t own shit on Steam. In fact the agreement specifically says you may need to use the client and be connected to the Internet in order to even play your games. Like if steam shut down tomorrow and just stopped existing it’s very possible they could legally just give you the middle finger and say sucks for you.
IANAL and there’s more to it than just the contract you have with Valve as far as the law goes but the way the contract is written you have no ownership of anything on the platform.
I interpret that as Steam covering for some enhittified games on their store that require a constant internet connection.
For example several games I have in my Steam library work fine offline.
But the Megaman Battle Network remake subtly requires an internet connection to start the gamea from the title screen.
Very misleading as the game technically boots offline but you can’t leave the title screen.
Just a reminder the Venn diagram of the G*mers spouting the “piracy isn’t stealing” and “valve is one of the good monopolies” and “support Palworld because fuck Nintendo” is a perfect circle
Valve had a massive hand in killing off physical PC releases and the sizable market of digital distribution.
There were so many different platforms out there. Some that didn’t involve having to install a third party launcher to play physical discs. IGN even had one.
Valve killed them with the same exclusivity deals you G*mer troglodytes bitch and moan about with Epic.
G*mer
Thanks for idiocy-signaling by trying to make fetch happen, makes it easy to know ahead of time not to take anything you say seriously
Yo dude, kayfabe kayfabe
To the seas. How does this conflict with the digital media copyright protection acts
