this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
252 points (97.0% liked)
Games
26383 readers
29 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's true tho, we never owned games, music, or movies on physical media either. We owned the revokable rights to view/use that copy of the media for private usage.
Every teacher that showed a movie in class broke a federal law.
It was just one of those things that was unenforceable and no one understood.
It doesn't mean we should accept not owning media, it just means we have zero chance of fixing it if we never understand it. A purchase should be lifetime usage, regardless of media. What you're buying is a license to view/use it, method doesn't matter.
Like how some people back in the day would only download a movie if they owned the DVD. That should be legal.
But trying to explain that never goes well
Naw man, that's just what they want you to believe because it benefits them.
We've de facto owned copies of whatever was purchased until the Internet changed the way ownership functions.
Laws are written by people. Traditionally, greedy people.
I think everyone understands just fine, we just won't be able to change that until the people who write laws are changed.
No, that's literally how software/media has always worked...
If you "own" code, then you can copy, distribute, and profit off of it 100% legally.
That's why software/media you "buy" is a license for personal use.
That's the entire point of the issue....
Did you think Blockbuster or any other rental store could buy a copy from Walmart and rent it out? Those were different licenses and the rental stores paid a shit ton more for their copies to be able to rent them.
Because it's never been about the physical media, but the license attached to it that determines fair usage
Yes and no. They did have licensing deals for video, but for video games they relied entirely on the First Sale Doctrine. Nintendo tried to sue because they didn't want to allow rentals, and lost.
You misunderstand me.
It hasn't always worked the way it does today. I know you buy a "license". But when you bought that cd rom or floppy or dvd or whatever physical media, you didn't have to do anything else to make it work. That copy ALWAYS worked, and you could sell it when you no longer needed it. Or you could let your friend borrow it.
"Fair usage" doesn't really work the way it used to.
That is not what “fair use” means in the context of copyright.
Also most of those licenses were non-transferable which means it was illegal to sell those games secondhand. But again it was unenforceable.
What you are talking about is DRM.
I think you are also missing my point.
I'm not talking about what the law is/was.
Also, I put "Fair usage" in quotes for a reason.
My point is that those producing media should not be able to sell you something that you are not allowed to control to some extent, and use at your disposal.
YES! That's how it fucking worked! For the exact same reason libraries can just buy a book, and then lend it out, because they fucking own it. That's what the money was for!
Rental chains only developed contractual relationships with movie studios because it's otherwise kind of difficult to buy five thousand copies of one tape. Studios sued, and lost, and came back with a truce.
The first sale doctrine is over a century old. Every medium has tried insisting it's special, and been slapped down as just another product. Software has been long awaiting that slap. Their excuses aren't anything new. Your rights have not changed.
Doesn't matter. Money will never be realer than the imagination of suckers. That is how Closed Source is what steals their souls. Dumbasses.
Is every account on that instance still just the same person?
Personally, I only have one account there and it's not my host, so, no.
Do you mean you're not the admin of that instance?
Because they use terms like "host" and "alter" to describe themselves
Straight up wrong. There's an exception to copyright for educational purposes for starters, so you're really being a dipshit eating your foot more than you are correct.
De facto, yes. De jure, no.
Sure, but like I said. People write the law... Greedy people usually.
Revoke my books. I fucking dare you.