878
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
878 points (98.7% liked)
Games
39400 readers
572 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
Authorized Regular Threads
Related communities
Video games
Generic
- Gaming: Our sister community, focused on PC and console gaming. Meme are allowed.
- Photo Mode: For all your screenshots needs, to share your love for games graphics.
Help and suggestions
Platform specific
Type specific
- City Builders
- CRPG
- Otome games
- Visual Novels
- Automation games
- Incremental Games
- Life simulation
- Cosy Games
Game specific
- Minecraft
- No Man's Sky
- Pokemon
- Stardew Valley
- Cassette Beasts
- Palia
- Subnautica 2
- Baldur's Gate 3
- Cites Skylines
- Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic
- Skyrim
- Fallout
Language specific
Others
PM a mod to add your own
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yep. We need a law that says "a person owns any item or service they buy for a one time fee. No 'licensing' them out of ownership" or legalese for the same thing. Only loophole should be if it's outright advertised as a subscription service.
Then another law that guarantees access to schematics and repair parts for reasonable fees. No loopholes. Schematics or die, that's how I roll.
Surely if we get the schematics, we would need a die of some kind as well, right?
Jokes aside, what do you expect is the alternative to licenses? You don't "legally own it" because it's an endlessly duplicatable infinitely durable item. There's literally no way to enforce ownership the same way with actual physical objects outside of keeping track of who owns what (and unsurprisingly, that's what a license is).
You're attacking the wrong thing here, licenses aren't the problem. It's the revocation of them that is.
Those are my thoughts as well. Like it or not, licenses are the way software has been sold since the very beginning of the industry. The problem is that most licenses can be revoked at any time for any reason; and the solution for that is passing a law that prohibits that.
If firms want to be able to revoke a license, they should have to clearly and prominently outline the conditions for that to happen- preferably before you even press the "buy" button.
I'm not completely against licensing, especially software. I'm against companies licensing buyers away from being able to use what they bought.
So if a license states "You own this as long as you don't make and distribute copies to other users. Also some lingo allowing for reasonable backup copies." 100% good in my opinion.
But a license that states "You paid for it but we can take it away for no good reason, such as a few months of inactivity." BS IMO.