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.
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.