Comment on US Rep proposes bill to give video game buyers "ownership," not "a license"
iuseasahibtw@ani.social 1 week ago
This is stupid-
You never had ownership of the game, just the physical disc that contains it. First-sale doctrine is clear about this and the perpetual license, non-exclusive license that allows you to play it.
His law doesn’t change that. It’s not going to allow buyers of a game to have a stack in the IP rights.
This stupid argument of owning physical media has always been a misunderstood argument. Pirate, emulate, and decompile when game companies make enjoying a game miserable.
Trying to start legal fights, that have already been settled, or launching literal political campaigns, like stop killing games, isn’t targeting the core issue of buying a game being easier than pirating it.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 1 week ago
First sale doctrine allows you to resell, rent, or giveaway things that you bought without having any claim over the IP. So for products where first sale doctrine applies you can buy it now, and then a few years down the line still use it or sell it to someone else. You can’t do the same with digital games, and that’s the issue at hand, that first sale doctrine is not being follow here, you can’t resell digital games, rent or even give them away.
iuseasahibtw@ani.social 1 week ago
Yes, you can.
GOG allows you to download the installers for use offline.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you download the installers you are literally making a copy. Since you still have access to the files on the Gog server. Making copies for personal use is allowed but selling the copies is not because of copyright laws. There is no digital store that facilitates reselling where you can transfer the license of one game to someone else.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That doesn’t give you the right to resell, rent or even giveaway that. Which is what the first sale doctrine allows you to. Not to mention that GoG is one store, which proves it’s not a law since others can do it differently.