We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
You have the personal right to use GOG content and services. This right can be suspended or stopped by us in some situations.
“GOG services” and “GOG content” are things like the GOG website itself, not the copies of the games you buy from it.
GOG suspending your right to use their service is analogous to a brick-and-mortar store trespassing and blacklisting you: in the same way that getting trespassed from GameStop doesn’t entitle them to break into your house and confiscate everything you’ve previously purchased from them, getting kicked off GOG does not and legally cannot invalidate your ownership – not “licensing,” ownership – of the games you’ve previously purchased from them.
1.3 Also, when we’re talking about games, in-game content, virtual items or currency or GOG videos or other content or services which you can purchase or access via GOG services, we’ll just call them “GOG games” or “GOG videos” respectively and when we talk about them all together they are “GOG content”.
Okay then, I guess GoG is lying the same way Steam is after all. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but concede that I was wrong.
“Licensed not sold” is still bunk, though. They do not have the right to confiscate games you’ve previously purchased, no matter what their fucking User Agreement claims.
Their user agreement doesn’t claim they can remove files from your computer. If your account gets suspended you no longer have access to the game you paid for unless you have previously downloaded and stored it.
I bought Witcher 3 on GOG, but I don’t currently have it saved anywhere. If GOG suspends my account, I can no longer access the content I paid for
This isn’t quite right. You do not own the game, you are purchasing a non-transferable license, bound to you:
2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use.
3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else.
It’s simply a boon that they entitle you to download DRM-free binaries but technically, if that license is revoked by GOG, you are not legally entitled to use or store that binary anymore. Practically, however, is a different story.
You’re right that they aren’t for different things, but neither mean that you don’t own the game. Both are referring to your continued permission to access your GOG account itself.
I can claim that this comment is “licensed” such that, by reading it, you now owe me a million dollars. But does that make it true? If you really think so, PM me to arrange payment!
“Since when is a license owning the game” is a nonsensical question, because the entire concept of the “license” is fiction to begin with. (In the context we’re talking about, of goods as opposed to services.)
Buying a copy of a copyrighted work has always meant buying a copy, from the dawn of copyright law straight through to today. It has never legitimately meant “licensing” anything.
You buy a paper book, you own that copy of the book.
You buy a music record, you own that copy of the music.
You buy a DVD of a movie, you own that copy of the movie.
You have always owned the individual copy (not copyright; that’s a different thing) of the work you purchased. It has never been different than that.
The only reason copyright cartel shysters have weaseled their way in to pretend otherwise, is that (unlike those other forms of media), you have to copy the software to at least your RAM, if not your hard drive, in order to use it, rather than consuming it directly. Because of this, the shysters claim that you need some kind of additional permission to actually use the software you bought, instead of just admiring your shiny plastic coaster.
But guess what! That incidental copying has a specific carve-out that makes it not count for the purpose of invoking copyright law. In reality, there is nothing to license. The “EULAs” grant you no ‘consideration’ and thus fail to qualify as a valid contract. You own the individual copy of the software just like you always did, with your books and your music and your movies.
Curious why you ignored disc based games? Those you actually own and no one can take them away.
And none of your examples are licensed, you actually own those items.
Why are you talking about copyright? Are you thinking that we’re talking about it owning part of the copyright or having access to it?
Or do you just not know what a license is? You realize that these are based on something in real life right? Like licenses to own guns, operate vehicles…. You don’t actually own those items, and they can be taken away. Just like a digital game!
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
Edit: I brain farted, and think I mixed up terms. Aleatory contracts are still valid, the issuers just have to withstand higher scrutiny if challenged.
So does GOG dude…
where
Their Eula….?
their eula does not state that you do not own the games.
Section 2.1:
“GOG services” and “GOG content” are things like the GOG website itself, not the copies of the games you buy from it.
GOG suspending your right to use their service is analogous to a brick-and-mortar store trespassing and blacklisting you: in the same way that getting trespassed from GameStop doesn’t entitle them to break into your house and confiscate everything you’ve previously purchased from them, getting kicked off GOG does not and legally cannot invalidate your ownership – not “licensing,” ownership – of the games you’ve previously purchased from them.
Okay then, I guess GoG is lying the same way Steam is after all. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but concede that I was wrong.
“Licensed not sold” is still bunk, though. They do not have the right to confiscate games you’ve previously purchased, no matter what their fucking User Agreement claims.
Their user agreement doesn’t claim they can remove files from your computer. If your account gets suspended you no longer have access to the game you paid for unless you have previously downloaded and stored it.
I bought Witcher 3 on GOG, but I don’t currently have it saved anywhere. If GOG suspends my account, I can no longer access the content I paid for
What part of “license” is so hard for you to comprehend?
https://programming.dev/comment/23071365
points two and three are for different things.
No they aren’t. Both mean that you don’t own the game.
You’re right that they aren’t for different things, but neither mean that you don’t own the game. Both are referring to your continued permission to access your GOG account itself.
Since when is a license owning the game?
It’s right there, unless you make up new terms or ignore the established legal terms.
They don’t offer games to buy, only licenses, so how can you ever own the game…?
Stop taking legal advice from your adversary!
I can claim that this comment is “licensed” such that, by reading it, you now owe me a million dollars. But does that make it true? If you really think so, PM me to arrange payment!
“Since when is a license owning the game” is a nonsensical question, because the entire concept of the “license” is fiction to begin with. (In the context we’re talking about, of goods as opposed to services.)
Buying a copy of a copyrighted work has always meant buying a copy, from the dawn of copyright law straight through to today. It has never legitimately meant “licensing” anything.
You buy a paper book, you own that copy of the book.
You buy a music record, you own that copy of the music.
You buy a DVD of a movie, you own that copy of the movie.
You have always owned the individual copy (not copyright; that’s a different thing) of the work you purchased. It has never been different than that.
The only reason copyright cartel shysters have weaseled their way in to pretend otherwise, is that (unlike those other forms of media), you have to copy the software to at least your RAM, if not your hard drive, in order to use it, rather than consuming it directly. Because of this, the shysters claim that you need some kind of additional permission to actually use the software you bought, instead of just admiring your shiny plastic coaster.
But guess what! That incidental copying has a specific carve-out that makes it not count for the purpose of invoking copyright law. In reality, there is nothing to license. The “EULAs” grant you no ‘consideration’ and thus fail to qualify as a valid contract. You own the individual copy of the software just like you always did, with your books and your music and your movies.
So you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Cool.
Curious why you ignored disc based games? Those you actually own and no one can take them away.
And none of your examples are licensed, you actually own those items.
Why are you talking about copyright? Are you thinking that we’re talking about it owning part of the copyright or having access to it?
Or do you just not know what a license is? You realize that these are based on something in real life right? Like licenses to own guns, operate vehicles…. You don’t actually own those items, and they can be taken away. Just like a digital game!
Get lost.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
Edit: I brain farted, and think I mixed up terms. Aleatory contracts are still valid, the issuers just have to withstand higher scrutiny if challenged.
lol no they aren’t.