That there's a question over who owns the things you bought is already beyond dystopian nightmare.
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
178 points (98.9% liked)
PC Gaming
14802 readers
243 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Not sure this makes things better or not, but I think more accurately it's a question of whether games are considered a service or a good. The games industry wants to treat game software with online connection components as a service, while in some respects presenting it as a good at the point-of-sale.
Software that is not actively maintained for a certain time should become public property. The same goes for books or music that go out of print for so long. "you want to sell me your original product? That's cool. You don't wanna do that anymore? Alright, but no need to bury it in obscurity."
That would require us to be a society that values culture and art over money.
I'm not ideologically opposed to people earning money with their unique ideas and artistic execution. Creative work is work is work. But I don't think that IP should be the gift that keeps on giving three generations after an authors death. IMHO, the public has a reasonable interest in works remaining available, that's why the "maintenance / out of print" clause. Writing good code is authorship. It's only natural the same rules apply, though I wouldn't be principally opposed to applying different time lines, e.g., 5 years for unmaintained proprietary code vs 20 years for books, to reflect the uniquely fast pace of software development vs the more long-lasting beauty of traditional art and literature. Of course there would need to be some very careful wording to define maintenance (e.g., in respect to which platform? What about versions of the same software) and to prevent on-paper continued availability of books at an inappropriately increased price. However, I believe the law makers and the courts could handle this medium diff if there was political will.
Software that is not actively maintained for a certain time should become public property.
Tbf, it does. The problem is that it takes >100 years
Yeah, how about we shorten that to a cumulative 10 years out of support / maintenance / print or after the death of the author / artist, whatever earlier. For software, a five years out of support threshold would honestly be preferable but I'll be generous.
US copyright used to be an automatic 17 years, with the option to file for an extension for an additional 17, for a max of 34. We should never haved moved away from that.