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.
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.