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!
Curious why you ignored disc based games? Those you actually own and no one can take them away.
Because I didn’t need to mention it separately. There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game and a downloaded one; you have all the same ownership rights in both cases.
And none of your examples are licensed, you actually own those items.
Exactly! And neither is software, as you literally just admitted!
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?
I am explicitly making as clear a distinction as I can between “holding the copyright” and “owning an individual copy” in order to emphasize that I am not talking about the former. I’m genuinely trying to be as precise as humanly possible, and I’m honestly baffled that you still somehow got it so backwards.
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!
You realize that just because something applies in one context doesn’t mean it applies the same way in some entirely different context, right?
Also, by the way, not having a license to operate a vehicle on public roads isn’t the same thing as not being allowed to own a car. Perhaps it’s you who is struggling to understand WTF you’re talking about.
There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this. There’s also plenty of precedence for this, so don’t even bother trying to bloviate down that alley, it’s a dead end, sorry. We know your angle and game.
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that, so no, they aren’t the same thing at all, and your trying to claim they are just shows how dumb and ignorant on this matter you are.
You really have no idea why you’re talking about, you’re using terms incorrectly and are ignoring your own examples.
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this
That’s a textbook circular argument. You’re trying to argue that things are licenses because they’re licenses.
We know your angle and game.
What, standing up for property rights? Do you have some sort of problem with that?!
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that,
Yes you can! If you don’t keep the original (or any other copy) for yourself. Then you’re actually selling your (albeit format-shifted) copy, not making new copies (plural). It’s doing things that increase the total number of people who have it that makes copyright law kick in; otherwise it’s just reselling an individual good.
And yes, the same applies to a downloaded file. It’s still just format-shifting!
If you think that’s wrong, cite the “all hella kind” of laws it breaks. Surely it’ll be easy for you, being so confident.
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.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
No it isn’t; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you’re not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download – i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself – but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
And these are the terms of use for that purchase. If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract. If those terms include that you don’t later publish videos of them on social media and then you do, you open yourself up to being sued, even though after the service has been provided you are no longer receiving an active benefit.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as “terms of use for that purchase;” it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract.
We’re talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
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.
Prove me wrong.
And do it by citing the law or the courts, not the adverse party.
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.
Because I didn’t need to mention it separately. There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game and a downloaded one; you have all the same ownership rights in both cases.
Exactly! And neither is software, as you literally just admitted!
I am explicitly making as clear a distinction as I can between “holding the copyright” and “owning an individual copy” in order to emphasize that I am not talking about the former. I’m genuinely trying to be as precise as humanly possible, and I’m honestly baffled that you still somehow got it so backwards.
You realize that just because something applies in one context doesn’t mean it applies the same way in some entirely different context, right?
Also, by the way, not having a license to operate a vehicle on public roads isn’t the same thing as not being allowed to own a car. Perhaps it’s you who is struggling to understand WTF you’re talking about.
You first.
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this. There’s also plenty of precedence for this, so don’t even bother trying to bloviate down that alley, it’s a dead end, sorry. We know your angle and game.
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that, so no, they aren’t the same thing at all, and your trying to claim they are just shows how dumb and ignorant on this matter you are.
You really have no idea why you’re talking about, you’re using terms incorrectly and are ignoring your own examples.
That’s a textbook circular argument. You’re trying to argue that things are licenses because they’re licenses.
What, standing up for property rights? Do you have some sort of problem with that?!
Yes you can! If you don’t keep the original (or any other copy) for yourself. Then you’re actually selling your (albeit format-shifted) copy, not making new copies (plural). It’s doing things that increase the total number of people who have it that makes copyright law kick in; otherwise it’s just reselling an individual good.
And yes, the same applies to a downloaded file. It’s still just format-shifting!
If you think that’s wrong, cite the “all hella kind” of laws it breaks. Surely it’ll be easy for you, being so confident.
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.
No it isn’t; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you’re not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download – i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself – but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
What else ya got?
And these are the terms of use for that purchase. If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract. If those terms include that you don’t later publish videos of them on social media and then you do, you open yourself up to being sued, even though after the service has been provided you are no longer receiving an active benefit.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as “terms of use for that purchase;” it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
We’re talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
lol no they aren’t.