PSA: Gamer's don't own digital games.

Whilst correct there's is some question over the legality of these agreements, generally where certain clauses seek to restrict or deprive consumers of their rights, there's an awful lot of double talk within the agreements and then of course there's the question of whether or not the people clicking on the other end are even legally capable of entering into the agreements, not to mention theses agreements occur post transaction.

I’m glad he speaks for me and all gamers.

I know I for one just can’t seem to think for myself.

It’s why I want digital games, I guess.

For people saying "blabbity blah blah you only own a disc not the license blah blah"

No one is going to come to your house and take your games away.

Maybe on consoles. But not on PC. PC has work around on digital games.

*Capital S, capital P or else I don't know you've quoted me.

I disagree. Full ownership allows you to do as you wish with your items as long as you're not committing an actual crime. (BTW, IP "theft" is not a crime) You may own your home. You own your gold... In the present day, you own very little else. You hold possessions, and you have a right to deprive others of their use (kind of like soft ownership) but since the advent of intellectual property (1624), you own virtually FA.

Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties.

What you've got in your games is a piece of plastic, which you're free to throw around as a frisbee, and a limited set of rights to the use of the software therein, or at least until the *IP owner's* rights have expired. That's all.

Don't like it? Join the club.

Physical/digital, who cares they can gimp the game no matter what. Ex. Socom 4, I bought physical disc, Couple years later Sony cuts online support pretty much killing the game.

Physical>Digital

physical you do own a copy of the game

digital you are granted access to the game but you own nothing tangible, nothing you can trade or sell.

The whole "you dont own physical either" is stupid, yeah you dont own licensing or anything but you do own a tangible copy, same with movies.

No... sorry, that just isn't the way things work. Just because you own your home (which you never truly do because of property taxes which if you stop paying you lose your home) or car (which you must pay insurance on and for new plates and stickers) does not mean that you can build more (houses) without licenses or permits (and even then could not sell the vehicles if they break patents or you use properties owned by other entities)... even on your own land.

That said if you have the intent to sell and use owned trademarks that is also illegal. Also, yes, IP theft is a crime.. (sure you can back up games that you already own) whether or not it's pursued by the law in the vast majority of cases is an entirely different story. Look at the big ROM sites that are getting shut down and sued for millions. How about you go tell them it isn't against the law? You don't seem to understand the difference between owning and selling original pieces that you are in possession legally and owning and selling a property that is owned by another entity illegally.

You can say what you will and go over this as many times as you wish, but it changes nothing. If you own the cart or disc and are free to sell that copy, and/or do with it as you please (and it's not online only, connected to a service) then you own that item... period. Gamestop has done very well for themselves over the years doing just that (not recently). There is a reason that they do not just buy one copy of games and then mass produce it and sell pirated copies, and that is because it would be illegal. Do you see the difference?

The owner of the property can't do anything to stop you from playing it, selling it, etc. (in a physical state) However, what they can do is prevent you from selling pirated copies. You know since you don't own the IP and that would be theft.... On that same note, they can stop, revoke, ban, or no longer service or update any kind of digitally owned product. Especially if it has to be online, or you are playing the game through a service.

Owning antiques, coins, precious stones or gems, etc. are all assets, as are any and all physical copy games you have in your possession (besides online only). Digital games are not assets and you never own them. You can go over the semantics all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that if I buy 500 copies of a game in its physical format that I may do with them as I please. This includes hoarding, selling, using as coasters, using for target practice, etc. The same can not be said for digital products. Argue if you will, but I'm not wrong. I consider something that I possess and can do with what I please (within legal limits) as something I own. Especially if I can buy, sell, trade and/or make a living from the possession through said processes without the worry of prosecution.

"But companies don't bother enforcing the EULA, so it's ok to break the terms".

That's an argument for piracy if I'd ever seen one.

@BigBadBully: That is only the case for games that have online functionality. SOCOM Confrontation is another example. However, single-player campaigns are unaffected (in the vast majority of cases) with physical copies. The same can not be said for digital media. They make it clear that for any reason they can revoke the license or just decide to not offer it anymore.

Typically all intellectual property offenses are treated as civil offenses unless the laws of state or federal government are not obeyed.

In case of intellectual property offense the owner of the IP has to sue the infringer in the court of law to get the infringing materials destroyed or remove and to collect financial damages from the infringer. The infringer has to follow the orders of the court and pay the damages to the original creator of the copyrighted creation. He cannot be sent to jail as civil suits never end in a jail punishment.

http://www.thewala.org/intellectual-property-laws-criminal-civil-offenses/

Civil vs. criminal offences.

Edumacate yoself.

Re. the second bolded part, You own the physical media, but you don't, as you've admitted above, own the copyrighted contents (which in the case of games, are always digital, no?).

I stand by the assertion you took issue with, that you've never truly owned your games. (Doesn't mean I like the fact - I think we agree there, at any rate)

The reason why the PSP Go failed miserably was not because it was a digital exclusive console; the reason why the PSP Go failed so miserably, was because it was a mid-gen revision of a handheld device that did physical format for its games. The whole idea for a handheld revision is to hopefully get some new players to jump in, but to also entice the veteran users to move up to an upgraded version of the console.

The PSP Go was a gigantic "F-You" by Sony and your premiere anti-consumer example when it asked all the previous PSP owners to RE-BUY all their existing library of PSP games if they wanted to keep playing them on PSP Go. Sony made it no possible way or method for PSP owners to transfer their physical games over to digital without being forced to re-buy them.

That's why PSP Go failed. Not because it was digital exclusive, but because Sony was being anti-consumer.

Legally, there is zero difference, which is why all this recent hand-wringing over not "owning" digital content is silly and misplaced. Consumers lost that "battle" decades ago.

It is against the law either way. Whether it is just knowing it and doing it anyway, or going big and actually trying to sell pirated copies or running a site that allows free illegal downloads. You can call it whatever you want... that doesn't mean it isn't against the law. Not every crime is punishable by jail time either.

No need to educate myself. You are grasping at straws on this one. You can twist the wording however you want, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are in possession of games you downloaded for free without permission then you own them illegally (unless you own a physical copy as well, in which case you are allowed to back that copy up with one rom), regardless of the severity (even if everyone does or has done it).

Also, I don't give a shit about the IP itself... I don't ever intend to sell illegal copies or print off a couple hundred for some strange personal use anyways. I'm talking about the physical media itself.. which YES a person can and does own, and can do with as they please with that ONE license of the game. Just because you buy a Ferrari doesn't mean you own the company that owns the right to the cars manufacturing itself. You can't start cloning Ferrari's and selling them as such. This is no different, you buy one copy. No one ever said you are buying the rights to the IP, and if someone thinks they are... well, they are braindead and need to reevaluate life.

Oh, and here is an excerpt from that link you sent me. I went to read it just for my own amusement. "The infringement of intellectual properties is normally treated as an offense that may or may not end up in imprisonment, depending upon the circumstances and status of crime." Meaning? Just like I said... it depends on the severity of the case. Either way, as I said before, it is still illegal even if you download just one rom or copy one game you don't own. Will charges ever be brought upon those downloading old roms to play for themselves without the intent of making a profit or making them easier for the masses to download for free? Very unlikely... but it's still against the law. That much doesn't change either way.

https://youtu.be/tUAX0gnZ3Nw

Far too much corporate boot licking in this thread.Watch the video and learn something about your rights as a consumer.

Honestly, I do agree with most of what you say. My point is that ownership is not a simple question in the eyes of the law and hasn't been for a very long time. Agreements that license us use of products should be subjected to common sense interpretations of what's right and wrong and why, based on what's healthy for the industry and for consumers and what's an erosion of rights and actually hinders competition and advancement. Companies know that it's not so cut and dry, and so they're often unwilling to test their position in courts of law. That's why it's very useful for them to have people believe that piracy is a black and white criminal issue, and the same reason we still don't have clear, definitive answers on e.g. the legality of backing up licensed data.

I'm not advocating for piracy, nor suggesting it isn't punishable by law (that was covered in my first post); I'm just pointing out that there's a disconnect between what's considered a crime by the state (and by most people) and what comes down to civil (interpersonal contractual) disputes. At the moment the answer is far from intuitive, and it's only in recent years that copyright law is beginning to become standardised around the world, but still not in criminal law. Sweden has very different constructions to the US, for example, as did much of Eastern Europe until only the last decade. The U.S has fair use doctrines; a lot of the world doesn't. China also has a different cultural attitude, historically and now, to what's right or legal, to what stifles advancement and what's productive, where free industry and individual freedom meets international IP laws. This is a major point of contention in international relations right now, and it's not something to be dismissed as obvious.

Re. the article: We can go through the differences in civil and criminal law together, if you like, and take a look at when failure to comply with court orders can be treated as a criminal offence (as that seems to be the root of our disagreement), but I'm no expert and it's a very boring subject most likely. I think when it comes down to ethics, we're probably roughly in agreement that wild piracy isn't the best idea for anyone, but it's possible we have slightly different ideas on how far it's healthy to prevent individuals and industries from "standing on the shoulders of giants" where doing so retards social and technological development and free competition.