If only he wasn’t one of the biggest AIPAC stooges in Washington.
US Rep proposes bill to give video game buyers "ownership," not "a license"
Submitted 3 weeks ago by schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to games@lemmy.world
Comments
ceenote@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Godort@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
If a bad person supports a good cause, that doesn’t make the cause bad.
ceenote@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I was more concerned with pointing out that it doesn’t make the bad person good, especially when they’re pushing the bill at a time where it has no chance of passing.
Artisian@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Would be nice for others to platform this too! Write and ask your rep about it.
FE80@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ritchie Torres is an AIPAC funded piece of shit. Fuck this guy.
Artisian@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So let’s add this to the platform of everyone, please. If you’re opposed to genocide and capitalism gone mad, this seems like an easy win.
zikzak025@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The Tech industry lobbyists will crush this idea before it ever sees a sincere vote, but at least someone out there is trying. Though the cynic in me still can’t help but feel that this is just an empty gesture in a bid for reelection.
nox@lemmus.org 3 weeks ago
He’s jumping on the bandwagon for votes this election. Won’t do a thing with this after he gets in
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Exactly what purpose does this comment serve? You hoping to get a suicide out of it?
AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I never understood why games could not work as books. I mean, when you buy a book, you own that single group of pages containing the words that make the story of said work. But you don’t own the work itself. Meaning that you own the unit containing it but, as you are not the owner of the work, you can’t profit from selling copies of it.
With a game, it should be the same, when you buy a game, you own either the disc containing it, or (if digital) the unique keycode identifying your copy. You can sell your own copy because you own it, but it doesn’t mean you own the work itself so you can’t copy it nor claim it as yours.
We really solved it long time ago, yet, for some reason (greed) we can’t use this method on games.
mcv@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Consider ebooks. Amazon has revoked and deleted ebooks that people paid for. They’ve ironically done it to 1984. And I think even to people living in countries where 1984 is public domain.
It’s not that they can’t treat games like books, it’s that they don’t want to. And they don’t want to treat books like books either; they just don’t have any control over the physical object once it leaves their hands. And before everything became downloads, games used to come on a CD, cartridge or cassette, and you could sell that just like you could sell a book, and they were powerless to prevent it. But with everything being downloads and always online, they have that power, so they use it.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s not that games can’t work as books, it’s that books can’t work like games.
Trust me, if book publisher could keep you from actually owning a physical book, from reselling it, from photocopying it, from lending it to a friend, they would. And with ebooks they do.
The fact that games are software gives publishers additional control over the product, and they take advantage of that control to limit user control whenever possible. You just can’t do that with a pile of paper bound together, otherwise they would.
This is where legislation can come in though. We need to make it legally clear that when you buy something you really own it. Renting, leasing, licensing, these ideas aren’t bad on their own, but you can’t call that “buying” and the venue offering these services shouldn’t be called a “store”. If it’s called a store, it needs to be actually selling things, otherwise the entire business is disingenuous and deceptive.
Limonene@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You do own the game, for most games sold on GoG. (Not the copyright assignment. The “game”, or “copy of the game”, however you want to refer to it.) If you buy a game as a disc, in a store, you own it until you take it home and find an EULA contract that takes away that ownership. I don’t believe a clickwrap contract has any legitimate effect, but I don’t think the courts would be on my side.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I have no idea what this actually means, but…
Based?
caboose2006@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Protect this man!
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
sad that it has to be legislated, but thats the world we live in now
The__Guy_Fawkes@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
More people are pirating everyday. There will be cracks to all games.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
With AI decompilation, I imagine cracked copies of GTA VI will be on PC within a week of releasing on PS5 lol
The__Guy_Fawkes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It is wild. There are some good uses with Ai.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
While it is a good idea, but it will result into a hell of a fight with the software industry in general. Their extortion schemes base on the very idea that you can’t own software at all.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You are right, but also fuck them. They didn’t invent the code or the concepts. They paid for other’s works and pretend it is theirs. Software is an amalgamation of so much before it. Pretending you own it when it really is the work of tens of thousands of people is silly in a way.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
dunno. the only people i’ve met who like Anything-as-a-Service don’t exist. i’ve never met anyone who likes that shit.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Nobody in his right likes it. The software companies do, though, for a number of reasons. First, they can squeeze more money out of people on the long run. Second, if we actually owned the software we paid for, we had much better legal standing with regards to reverse engineering or altering it to fit a purpose - something the normal licensing terms strictly forbid.
iuseasahibtw@ani.social 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
Yes, you can.
GOG allows you to download the installers for use offline.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Why this bill makes no sense
The game, which retailed for $69.99 for the standard edition and $99.99 for the All-Star Edition, will be delisted from digital storefronts on October 30 and will have its online servers shut down on December 31, only two years after its initial release.
Games with online functionality would also be required to provide an offline mode before the servers supporting them are shut down.
NBA games have an offline mode, so they are protected by this bill.
gothmog@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Good idea. Bad execution.
QuadratureSurfer@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
How would you fix it?
mossberg590@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Our legislatures have more important things to do. There is a very simple solution. Don’t buy those games that don’t give a download/ physical disc. Otherwise the software companies will just figure away around the rules.
blitzen@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
It shouldn’t be narrowly focused on just video games. Should simply be anything digital.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Babysteps? Maybe if it is about video games, the old people won’t know enough about it and pass it, which would make it easier to expand to any digital software.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Unlikely. We ended up here because of corporations lobbying the government to prevent bills like this from becoming laws and to allow them to set up the system the way they wanted it because it benefits them.
The old people are in their pockets and the most susceptible to their schemes to prevent changes in the status quo because it makes them money.
This is an attempt to sway people to vote for him in an election year.
cybervseas@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Scoped in a way to get press and hopefully positive attention before voting starts in a week or so.
dusk@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Agreed, but if passed it would set a significant precedent that would surely have to flow onto all/other digital media.