Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

No. Copyright doesn’t need to be registered to be valid. In the US specifically, registration only allows the copyright holder to pursue the case through the federal courts, which can award punitive damages as well as costs.

We could easily get a lot of things, but we don't fight to receive them. We think that the laws are supposed to be made to benefit us, but that stopped being the case as soon as we allowed corporations to influence things in their own favor instead. Everything in capitalism is a battle - you're either fighting to win, or letting someone else win by default.

At this point things are so bad that we'd have to band together and fight like hell even for a minor win, and few people want to do that. Stop Killing Games is the closest thing we have to what we should have organized as soon as digital media started becoming common.

GOG DRM-free digital games are ownership

The industry makes billions renting instead of selling their stuff, and they spend it all trying to stop piracy.

Well, I'm just happy that they can't remotely delete the game from my PC's drive if they do choose to unsell it. Unless they can with EULA clauses like "We reserve the right to remotely access and update the Product at any time" in which case, Fuck

Honestly, in this case I think its time based licensing that is the issue. This would be very limited as an issue as a whole if publishers/creators couldn't say "yea so you have the ability to sell this, but after X years you lose the ability to host it period"

Currently big companies like sony can just offload the blame to the license holder saying "yea we cant host it anymore" when in reality it shouldn't matter.

Licensing that expire over time shouldn't be legal. If you bought a license to use a product, you should be allowed to keep that product. Don't provide updates if don't want to, but if you paid for the ability to have and use a product (in this case media) it shouldn't be legal to retroactively pull it without compensation.

Said compensation should also at minimum be a percentage of the product based off how much it was used, with the overall refund not allowed to go under half the price of the product paid. The fact they can be like "yea we don't wanna host this anymore but we aren't going to provide refunds" is ridiculous.

Being said, I agree with your sentiment. I firmly believe bypassing DRM for a product you bought and have the right to use should be legal. I don't agree that Ripping a movie that you purchased that has a DRM component should be illegal, just like I don't agree that removing a DRM component from a game I own should be illegal. If you own the product, you should be allowed to use it how you want. I can understand the exception of distribution(this doesn't mean I agree with it), because I get it $$$ but the fact I can potentially be charged criminally for ripping a 4k disk, and then putting it on my private media server that only I have access to, is insane to me.

If someone else is storing the digital copy for you, on a system you don't control, it's not "ownership".

Correct. Digital goods with DRM cannot be owned by definition. Its a remote killswitch whenever they like. They should be banned from using the word purchase or buy on those products. They should be forced to use the words "acquire revokable licence"

Eh, digital goods are still a problem. For exactly the reasons stated above.

• Resale/gifting of used copies becomes more difficult and often impossible.

• Your digital library can be taken away from you at any time, with no recourse.

This is something I don't think should be legal under false advertising laws as well.

When fortnite was super popular, they would release "physical" releases of their cosmetics dlcs. We would have grandmas coming in wanting to get little timmy the game they wanted, and would choose the 40$ DLC thinking it was an actual game when in reality it was a plastic case with a download code in it. We would explain "hey btw just incase you didn't know, this isn't actually a game, its 40$ for some skins on a free to play game that they already have"

9/10 customers would be like "Wait what really? thats so shitty thank you for informing me" and would choose another game from the selection.

It's blatant false advertising and super deceptive marketing tactics. A physical release should not be a code to use a license. It should be the actual game.

That is still better than no physical release at all as its at least transferrable, but yeah,the servers can be pulled and it made unobtainable if your console storage does.

Any time I see this "I don't understand what the problem is" what I hear is "I'm incapable of putting myself in the minds of others".

Yeah like he didn't host one of the biggest shows in the 2010s era.

I highly recommend reading his book, this guy is an OG media pirate