For better or worse, that is how ALL software has been for decades. And every DVD and CD. Because you don't get the rights to the song or movie. If it were not that way, and the disc was anything but a license, then you'd be the new IP owner.
Seems like every couple years, someone learns this and it's news again.
Not really. Afaik buying a game meant you own the copy as long as you don't tamper with it or redistribute it for money. Backups were a bit of a grey area, but since everything is digital nowdays...
Movies and music are also a bit iffy, companies get pretty anal when you use a song or a clip on YouTube (even thought it should count as transformative use if used for a review), but corpos wouldnt argue getting your friends and family together to watch a movie is copyright infringement...
you own the copy as long as you don't tamper with it or redistribute it for money
What do you think you call limited "ownership" with specific provisions on what you can do with the media? It's called a license. If you actually owned the contents of the disc/download, there would be no restrictions.
You know that isn't what's being discussed, don't act stupid. This is about Ubisoft turning off servers and you can't ever play a game again, even when it's a single player CD you bought with cash from a store. This is about them turning all of their games into Games as a Service.
Even your first quote, and the article itself, says LICENSE TO ACCESS. "Access" does not mean "IP ownership," it means "It's in my house and I want to use it now since I paid for it 10 years ago."
This one is interesting because the expiration on the activation code suggested that it should be usable that long.
But the article is written as if it's a license vs. ownership question. Rather than a question about the license's terms. I don't know why people are HERE of all places trying to cover for fucking IGN's bad journalism.
Yes, but the fact is there normally comes an ownership gray area once that product is no longer "current" and support is discontinued. Where the manufacturer indirectly cedes responsibility of the product's upkeep unto the owner. Apple will not fix a 20 year old iPod, for instance, but they might offer you a new iPhone at a slight discount.
Take cars for instance. Other than extreme edge cases with experimental technology like the GM EV-1, cars are NEVER called back to the company to be destroyed once they reach a certain age and decide to stop stocking parts for them. But at the same time, during my continued ownership of an older car, I never become the owner of the car's intellectual property. I do not own the rights to the 1990s Toyota Camry in its totality, I just own AN example of one. And in owning that car, I can do whatever I like with it without the company sending me nasty legal letters. Drive it for another half a million miles. Change the body or engine parts. Lower it. Repaint it. Chop the roof off. Put my name on the back instead.
The same should apply to other forms of media. I don't own a film or a game, but I own an example of it. And given that product has now had support officially terminated, there should be absolutely NOTHING holding me back in enjoying that product even though support is gone. Whether that's as simple as playing it or giving it a total conversion into another game entirely through modding and remastering.
And until a landmark case rules in our favor, which is likely never, I am going to keep pirating, cracking, and distributing the tapes because if licensing beyond the original support window isn't ownership, then pirating isn't stealing. End of.
For better or worse, that is how ALL software has been for decades.
You could have stopped there, and had something of a point, although it's still terrible business practice to come out and tell the customer that they don't actually own shit.
And every DVD and CD. Because you don't get the rights to the song or movie. If it were not that way, and the disc was anything but a license, then you'd be the new IP owner.
This is just a really strange argument, though. Like with any product, you can access your property for as long as it remains functional. The DVD and CD are yours, as is everything on them.
That's like saying your car is a license, or something.
Seems like every couple years, someone learns this and it's news again.
Except you're just wrong.
Many things are licenses, and they aren't open about that, sure. But that's totally different than what you're painting.
it's still terrible business practice to come out and tell the customer that they don't actually own shit.
It's the only business practice. Trying to be quiet about the terms of an agreement and then spring them on people later is the worst possible thing you can do. A business ideally wants to make it as clear as possible so if it goes to trial there is no question at all. Being vague does not benefit them; the terms being crystal clear but inconvenient to read does.
This is just a really strange argument, though.
It's not. It is the way it's been at least as far back as I can remember. You own the physical disc, but only a license to access the content stored within it. Yes, you can keep using it (within the terms of the license) until it breaks. You can even sell it and transfer the media's license to someone else.
as is everything on them.
This is where you're wrong. If I owned the data on a DVD, I'd be free to copy and distribute it however I, the owner, wanted to. But you cannot. Public presentation, file sharing, etc. can violate the license.
That's like saying your car is a license, or something.
The software running in your car probably is licensed somehow. But no, tangible goods and digital media are different beasts. Though, Ferrari has tried some weird contract shit.
Anyway, we're mainly talking about games. Here's the text that appears along the top edge of Tomb Raider II for the PS1:
Licensed by Sony Computer Entertainment America for use with the PlayStation game console.
Now we can get into Fair Use and enforceability, but it's still a license. One that aims to keep you from doing anything with the media therein that the PS1 itself does not enable you to do. And yeah, things were less explicit before the disc era. The 16 bit era only had copyright notices from what I saw in my collection. It was only once you could read the media with a home PC that they got touchy about it.
Anyway, my point is that these articles should be talking about license terms and the fact that they shouldn't be revocable. Or that in the case of revocation, the customer is made whole. But people constantly finding out for the first time that digital media is licensed is tedious.
If I owned the data on a DVD, I'd be free to copy and distribute it
They can't take away the disk or data. You own it, for all intents and purposes. That's totally different than online distribution, and you know this.
Now we can get into Fair Use and enforceability, but it's still a license
But again, talk practicality. If you own a PlayStation, and you own a Tomb Raider II disk...you own Tomb Raider II. No, not the IP or anything, and no one was saying that. But you own that copy of the game. They're not going to come revoke your license, so it doesn't matter if it's technically a license or not. You're not going to lose access to Tomb Raider II, unless, as mentioned, your property breaks.
That's totally different than buying a modern game, and someone on the distribution store, or at the game company, or whatever, deciding you actually can't play it anymore.
That's totally different than online distribution, and you know this.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said that makes the difference between if the license can be revoked or not.
But you own that copy of the game
No, you don't. You own:
The physical object
A license to use the digital contents of that physical object
You don't own the software on the disk. If you did, you could freely copy it. Maybe there are some countries render the license terms null, but we're not talking about the exceptions.
it doesn't matter if it's technically a license or not
We can talk all day about digital distribution and how it's a very consumer-unfriendly environment. I've said it several times already, but people prefer to read in things I didn't write. The conversation should be about what are reasonable license terms for software, not the "OMG, CAN YOU BELIEVE A COURT SAID SOFTWARE IS JUST A LICENCE?!" clickbait. It turns uninformed readers into a smokescreen that prevents actual discussion about things like the lack of first-sale, forced arbitration, general EULA enforceability, etc.
Go back and look at the boxes/manuals of games that even came on 3.5" diskettes. Software being license-based has nothing to do with software as a service. I don't blame you for not realizing it because most people never bothered to understand that because "physical object = license" made it a distinction without difference.
Remember shareware? "Shareware" refers to the license terms. Open Source? GPL is a license. Apache is a license. MIT is a license. BSD is a license. They are all licenses. They always have been. It has nothing to do with digital distribution, subscriptions or SaaS.
Even the non-commercial stuff is usually licensed. Maybe there's some rare commercial software release out there that had no terms whatsoever, but that would be such a rare case it's not really worth considering. So yes, it's the only business practice.
At least in America where corporate lawyers write IP law you might be right. There might be a chance in the EU or countries with actual consumer protection laws.
Court of Justice of the European Union, PRESS RELEASE No 94/12, Luxembourg, 3 July 2012
An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet
The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale
Emphasis mine. The EU might have more regulation about what license terms can contain, but software is still licensed.
Well no that's not the alternative at all.
Yeah, I went a little to far with that one. Sequels, etc. would still be an issue of copyright. But if you own the disc and the contents, why can't you make 50,000 copies and give them away? It's yours, right?
For better or worse, that is how ALL software has been for decades. And every DVD and CD. Because you don't get the rights to the song or movie. If it were not that way, and the disc was anything but a license, then you'd be the new IP owner.
Seems like every couple years, someone learns this and it's news again.
Not really. Afaik buying a game meant you own the copy as long as you don't tamper with it or redistribute it for money. Backups were a bit of a grey area, but since everything is digital nowdays...
Movies and music are also a bit iffy, companies get pretty anal when you use a song or a clip on YouTube (even thought it should count as transformative use if used for a review), but corpos wouldnt argue getting your friends and family together to watch a movie is copyright infringement...
What do you think you call limited "ownership" with specific provisions on what you can do with the media? It's called a license. If you actually owned the contents of the disc/download, there would be no restrictions.
You know that isn't what's being discussed, don't act stupid. This is about Ubisoft turning off servers and you can't ever play a game again, even when it's a single player CD you bought with cash from a store. This is about them turning all of their games into Games as a Service.
Even your first quote, and the article itself, says LICENSE TO ACCESS. "Access" does not mean "IP ownership," it means "It's in my house and I want to use it now since I paid for it 10 years ago."
This one is interesting because the expiration on the activation code suggested that it should be usable that long.
But the article is written as if it's a license vs. ownership question. Rather than a question about the license's terms. I don't know why people are HERE of all places trying to cover for fucking IGN's bad journalism.
Yes, but the fact is there normally comes an ownership gray area once that product is no longer "current" and support is discontinued. Where the manufacturer indirectly cedes responsibility of the product's upkeep unto the owner. Apple will not fix a 20 year old iPod, for instance, but they might offer you a new iPhone at a slight discount.
Take cars for instance. Other than extreme edge cases with experimental technology like the GM EV-1, cars are NEVER called back to the company to be destroyed once they reach a certain age and decide to stop stocking parts for them. But at the same time, during my continued ownership of an older car, I never become the owner of the car's intellectual property. I do not own the rights to the 1990s Toyota Camry in its totality, I just own AN example of one. And in owning that car, I can do whatever I like with it without the company sending me nasty legal letters. Drive it for another half a million miles. Change the body or engine parts. Lower it. Repaint it. Chop the roof off. Put my name on the back instead.
The same should apply to other forms of media. I don't own a film or a game, but I own an example of it. And given that product has now had support officially terminated, there should be absolutely NOTHING holding me back in enjoying that product even though support is gone. Whether that's as simple as playing it or giving it a total conversion into another game entirely through modding and remastering.
And until a landmark case rules in our favor, which is likely never, I am going to keep pirating, cracking, and distributing the tapes because if licensing beyond the original support window isn't ownership, then pirating isn't stealing. End of.
You could have stopped there, and had something of a point, although it's still terrible business practice to come out and tell the customer that they don't actually own shit.
This is just a really strange argument, though. Like with any product, you can access your property for as long as it remains functional. The DVD and CD are yours, as is everything on them.
That's like saying your car is a license, or something.
Except you're just wrong.
Many things are licenses, and they aren't open about that, sure. But that's totally different than what you're painting.
It's the only business practice. Trying to be quiet about the terms of an agreement and then spring them on people later is the worst possible thing you can do. A business ideally wants to make it as clear as possible so if it goes to trial there is no question at all. Being vague does not benefit them; the terms being crystal clear but inconvenient to read does.
It's not. It is the way it's been at least as far back as I can remember. You own the physical disc, but only a license to access the content stored within it. Yes, you can keep using it (within the terms of the license) until it breaks. You can even sell it and transfer the media's license to someone else.
This is where you're wrong. If I owned the data on a DVD, I'd be free to copy and distribute it however I, the owner, wanted to. But you cannot. Public presentation, file sharing, etc. can violate the license.
The software running in your car probably is licensed somehow. But no, tangible goods and digital media are different beasts. Though, Ferrari has tried some weird contract shit.
Anyway, we're mainly talking about games. Here's the text that appears along the top edge of Tomb Raider II for the PS1:
Now we can get into Fair Use and enforceability, but it's still a license. One that aims to keep you from doing anything with the media therein that the PS1 itself does not enable you to do. And yeah, things were less explicit before the disc era. The 16 bit era only had copyright notices from what I saw in my collection. It was only once you could read the media with a home PC that they got touchy about it.
Anyway, my point is that these articles should be talking about license terms and the fact that they shouldn't be revocable. Or that in the case of revocation, the customer is made whole. But people constantly finding out for the first time that digital media is licensed is tedious.
They can't take away the disk or data. You own it, for all intents and purposes. That's totally different than online distribution, and you know this.
But again, talk practicality. If you own a PlayStation, and you own a Tomb Raider II disk...you own Tomb Raider II. No, not the IP or anything, and no one was saying that. But you own that copy of the game. They're not going to come revoke your license, so it doesn't matter if it's technically a license or not. You're not going to lose access to Tomb Raider II, unless, as mentioned, your property breaks.
That's totally different than buying a modern game, and someone on the distribution store, or at the game company, or whatever, deciding you actually can't play it anymore.
Totally different beasts.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said that makes the difference between if the license can be revoked or not.
You don't own the software on the disk. If you did, you could freely copy it. Maybe there are some countries render the license terms null, but we're not talking about the exceptions.
We can talk all day about digital distribution and how it's a very consumer-unfriendly environment. I've said it several times already, but people prefer to read in things I didn't write. The conversation should be about what are reasonable license terms for software, not the "OMG, CAN YOU BELIEVE A COURT SAID SOFTWARE IS JUST A LICENCE?!" clickbait. It turns uninformed readers into a smokescreen that prevents actual discussion about things like the lack of first-sale, forced arbitration, general EULA enforceability, etc.
You do realize software existed and was sold as a product before the software as a service business model was created, right?
Go back and look at the boxes/manuals of games that even came on 3.5" diskettes. Software being license-based has nothing to do with software as a service. I don't blame you for not realizing it because most people never bothered to understand that because "physical object = license" made it a distinction without difference.
Remember shareware? "Shareware" refers to the license terms. Open Source? GPL is a license. Apache is a license. MIT is a license. BSD is a license. They are all licenses. They always have been. It has nothing to do with digital distribution, subscriptions or SaaS.
Even the non-commercial stuff is usually licensed. Maybe there's some rare commercial software release out there that had no terms whatsoever, but that would be such a rare case it's not really worth considering. So yes, it's the only business practice.
At least in America where corporate lawyers write IP law you might be right. There might be a chance in the EU or countries with actual consumer protection laws.
Well no that's not the alternative at all.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
Emphasis mine. The EU might have more regulation about what license terms can contain, but software is still licensed.
Yeah, I went a little to far with that one. Sequels, etc. would still be an issue of copyright. But if you own the disc and the contents, why can't you make 50,000 copies and give them away? It's yours, right?
And that's why EULAs basically never hold up in court?