You dont own the Steam games you paid for!

[Wizzcat]

i just found out that all the hundreds and hundreds of dollars I've spent on steam games,that they are not mine to keep, if something happens to steam, or you do not have a steam account, all the games you bought are gone, all the money you spent on the games is gone, you don't own physical copies that you can install again if you don't have a steam account.

[Chika Ogiue]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Alasdair:

you lied about my position it's impossible to have a coherent conversation with someone like you.

What position? The only thing you have repeatedly stated in this thread is how you think games should be treated like digital shares. Games are not shares. That's not lying about your position. That's summing up a fact (that you keep comparing games to shares) and disputing why that comparison makes sense (it doesn't because your other point, first sale doctrine, doesn't apply to either shares or digitally licensed games).

It's okay to admit that you've got no counter argument, but if you're going to accuse someone of lying, then show where that lie was. Otherwise, it's impossible to take you seriously.

[Chika Ogiue]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ModWorld:

All my steam games are archived on physical media where I don't already own the original physical media (Floppy/CD/DVD). So if Steam goes belly up, I loose nothing.

Could you please try something for me and let me know how it turns out? Put your Steam client into offline mode (perhaps even physically disconnect your PC from the internet) and then install one of your backups and launch it. At any point are you prompted to put Steam online?

[76561199738392758]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ZeroKasa:

such information goes without saying.

Erm no it doesn't. I can't believe people like this, do you work for Valve or what?

[76561199738392758]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Chika Ogiue:

Diposting pertama kali oleh ModWorld:

All my steam games are archived on physical media where I don't already own the original physical media (Floppy/CD/DVD). So if Steam goes belly up, I loose nothing.

Could you please try something for me and let me know how it turns out? Put your Steam client into offline mode (perhaps even physically disconnect your PC from the internet) and then install one of your backups and launch it. At any point are you prompted to put Steam online?

Good point, he might need to remove Steam DRM. Which is very easy. I assume I'm not allowed to tell you how tho.

[Alasdair]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Chika Ogiue:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Alasdair:

you lied about my position it's impossible to have a coherent conversation with someone like you.

What position? The only thing you have repeatedly stated in this thread is how you think games should be treated like digital shares. Games are not shares. That's not lying about your position. That's summing up a fact (that you keep comparing games to shares) and disputing why that comparison makes sense (it doesn't because your other point, first sale doctrine, doesn't apply to either shares or digitally licensed games).

It's okay to admit that you've got no counter argument, but if you're going to accuse someone of lying, then show where that lie was. Otherwise, it's impossible to take you seriously.

in this very post you are lying about my position, and about your response to it you said I thought they were already comparable legally. I did not state that. You lied about what my position is, and you are lying about it again. I'm not saying they are the same thing I'm saying the protections afforded to a 100% digital thing like a uncertified share can be applied to a ownership of a game and it's likely the only way to give it value to the customer.

There's no reason to provide a counter argument because you are arguing in bad faith and misrepresenting or completely lying about what my argument is you've done it multiple times. there's no reason to take you seriously because you are morally and honestly bankrupt. You never provided an argument to begin with only aimed to disrupt the conversation with non arguments and lies.

no reason to provide a counter argument because you never provided any argument yourself and there's no argument against what I said. it's a strategy on how to restore rights and consumer protections for digital media you either believe in that or you do not.

Not once in my post do I say games are shares, and in your post you lie about my position "should be treated like." to "they are the same as." it's one or the other, I'm showing a situation where a 100% digital thing has the same rights as a physical good, and how it can and should be implemented with digital media as well to secure consumer rights.

You are saying I stated stocks and digital games are the same. that's a lie. I never said that I'm saying if you can own stocks that are digital legally, you can own digital media, and you should have the same protections, and that it's not a force of natural law that you do not own the media you purchase digitally, we have solutions.

[pckirk]

You have NEVER owned any type of software or music or video, even before digital. You keep talking about restoring ownership rights to these products, but nothing has changed in over 40 plus years. Even when we had software on physical media, or music on physical media, or video on physical media, YOU STILL DO NOT OWN it. You paid for a licence to use that Item for non commercial use. Now, it is just easier to enforce. It is not going to change, nor does it need to change.

[76561199738392758]

Diposting pertama kali oleh pckirk:

You have NEVER owned any type of software or music or video, even before digital. You keep talking about restoring ownership rights to these products, but nothing has changed in over 40 plus years. Even when we had software on physical media, or music on physical media, or video on physical media, YOU STILL DO NOT OWN it. You paid for a licence to use that Item for non commercial use. Now, it is just easier to enforce. It is not going to change, nor does it need to change.

But that is just a fiction. The reality is that if I have a DVD with a game on it, nobody is going to take it from me. It's different if Steam goes down and I lose all my games.

[Alasdair]

"um actually here's how you don't own it because you can't use it commercially got 'em"

You don't get to define your own metric for what ownership is. Everyone here knows what it means and first sale doctrine gives you the protections to fully own your physical products you buy and can use indefinitely.

[Start_Running]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

Diposting pertama kali oleh pckirk:

You have NEVER owned any type of software or music or video, even before digital. You keep talking about restoring ownership rights to these products, but nothing has changed in over 40 plus years. Even when we had software on physical media, or music on physical media, or video on physical media, YOU STILL DO NOT OWN it. You paid for a licence to use that Item for non commercial use. Now, it is just easier to enforce. It is not going to change, nor does it need to change.

But that is just a fiction. The reality is that if I have a DVD with a game on it, nobody is going to take it from me. It's different if Steam goes down and I lose all my games.

That's fiction. DVD's , like any other property can be seized, especially where violations of contract or laws occur. The fact that your argument revolves around:

"No company's gonna send someone to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to seize my stuff. So it's okay."

That line of thought pretty much explains why Company's are moving towards distrubution models that allow thm to retain and exercise their rights. Because apparently there's a couple generations worth of people that think breaking laws is okay so long as no one can catch you.

[76561199738392758]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Start_Running:

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

But that is just a fiction. The reality is that if I have a DVD with a game on it, nobody is going to take it from me. It's different if Steam goes down and I lose all my games.

That's fiction. DVD's , like any other property can be seized, especially where violations of contract or laws occur. The fact that your argument revolves around:

"No company's gonna send someone to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to seize my stuff. So it's okay."

That line of thought pretty much explains why Company's are moving towards distrubution models that allow thm to retain and exercise their rights. Because apparently there's a couple generations worth of people that think breaking laws is okay so long as no one can catch you.

I knew someone would come up with this. Because you can't distinguish between fiction and reality. Laws are fictional. Money is fictional. A lot of things are fictional, but because everyone partakes in the fiction, they become real pragmatically. "Rights"? Fictional. Your argument about seizing property is a big reach. And it is quite worrisome if you think that should be a thing because of these so called "rights".

[PocketYoda]

As some one who has been playing games since pong days this isn't really new, we as customers have never owned the games we buy, we bought licences the same as everything online.

Very very few online apps are owned by customers if even any. In the old days we got a manual and a CD but the apps on it were still owned by the developers or publishers.

[Start_Running]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Start_Running:

That's fiction. DVD's , like any other property can be seized, especially where violations of contract or laws occur. The fact that your argument revolves around:

"No company's gonna send someone to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to seize my stuff. So it's okay."

That line of thought pretty much explains why Company's are moving towards distrubution models that allow thm to retain and exercise their rights. Because apparently there's a couple generations worth of people that think breaking laws is okay so long as no one can catch you.

I knew someone would come up with this. Because you can't distinguish between fiction and reality. Laws are fictional. Money is fictional.

Laws are quite real and have a demonstrable impact on one's life.
Go and rob a store if you don't believe.
Money is quite real as well since you can see a very real difference in one's reality when one has it versus when one doesn't.

I don't think you know what the word 'fictional' means.

But lets entertain your tangent. If laws are fictional, then you have no rights to anything you purchased. Ergo they don't even have to give you a working dvd. If money is fictional then you exchanged nothing for the product and thusly you lose nothing when it goes poof.

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

A lot of things are fictional, but because everyone partakes in the fiction, they become real pragmatically. "Rights"? Fictional. Your argument about seizing property is a big reach.

Nope. I've seen more than a few cases of that happening.

I know people who have actually done prison time for violating the terms on a DVD's and MUsic CD's. As for rights being fictional...yeah RIghts aren't an inherent property of existence they are given by society and as such they are a representation of what society has agreed

This changes over time. but they are real as the consequences for going against it.. has dire consequences.

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

And it is quite worrisome if you think that should be a thing because of these so called "rights".

Anymore worrisome than you thinking you have the right to something because you paid for it?

Diposting pertama kali oleh PocketYoda:

As some one who has been playing games since pong days this isn't really new, we as customers have never owned the games we buy, we bought licences the same as everything online.

Very very few online apps are owned by customers if even any. In the old days we got a manual and a CD but the apps on it were still owned by the developers or publishers.

Bingo.

[Chika Ogiue]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

he might need to remove Steam DRM.

And if you have to do that it means you don't own it.

[76561199676322390]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Start_Running:

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

I knew someone would come up with this. Because you can't distinguish between fiction and reality. Laws are fictional. Money is fictional.

Laws are quite real and have a demonstrable impact on one's life.
Go and rob a store if you don't believe.
Money is quite real as well since you can see a very real difference in one's reality when one has it versus when one doesn't.

I don't think you know what the word 'fictional' means.

But lets entertain your tangent. If laws are fictional, then you have no rights to anything you purchased. Ergo they don't even have to give you a working dvd. If money is fictional then you exchanged nothing for the product and thusly you lose nothing when it goes poof.

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

A lot of things are fictional, but because everyone partakes in the fiction, they become real pragmatically. "Rights"? Fictional. Your argument about seizing property is a big reach.

Nope. I've seen more than a few cases of that happening.

I know people who have actually done prison time for violating the terms on a DVD's and MUsic CD's. As for rights being fictional...yeah RIghts aren't an inherent property of existence they are given by society and as such they are a representation of what society has agreed

This changes over time. but they are real as the consequences for going against it.. has dire consequences.

Diposting pertama kali oleh ghost:

And it is quite worrisome if you think that should be a thing because of these so called "rights".

Anymore worrisome than you thinking you have the right to something because you paid for it?

Interesting post. First you say you don't understand what I said, but after the second quote you show that you do. At least, partially.

Let's try to translate your 'rights' thing to a real situation. Are you saying that if I buy a DVD, it remains the property of whoever produced it and they can seize it from me whenever they want? Or what?

[Alasdair]

"The “first sale” doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) gives the owners of copyrighted works the rights to sell, lend, or share their copies without having to obtain permission or pay fees. The copy becomes like any piece of physical property; you've purchased it, you own it."