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.
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.