ubisoft should get used to players no longer owning their games

Ubisoft execs are correct, gamers need to get used to not owning Ubisoft games (or purchasing them, heck they're not worth the storage space to pirate.)

Companies spend far more on anti piracy for single-player games than they would make if all those stolen copies were legit sales. It's a power thing

Old-fashioned high seas pirating may have been stealing, but the modern copyright infringement form has never been stealing.

A key aspect of stealing is that you're depriving the owner of some kind of property. While you have that property, they don't, and they can't use it. Copyright infringement doesn't deprive the owner of anything. The only thing they lose is the government-granted monopoly over the right to distribute that "idea". If copyright infringement is like an old fashioned crime, it's like trespassing. The government granted someone the right to control who has access to some land, and a trespasser violates that law.

lol as if ubisoft games are worth pirating. I pay for my internet connection and I'd rather use it on something that isn't slop

It never was, only a corrupt judge can reach that conclusion. Stealing is subtracting an item from one person and adding it to another person, if there are two copies of the item then it's not stealing.

Sorry Ubisoft, I'm not buying some of your almost decade-old game that still has Denuvo.

If you don't put your old games that made the bulk of their money a long time ago on GOG, I won't buy it.

Okay, but if I send you an unsolicited dick pick, who owns the rights?

Stream is the one now forced to label change if you've missed recent events

I have 2TB of music and 7TB of videos but I rarely pirate a game.

Almost never, sometimes I'm extremely interested in something but want to try it out first. Games are such time sinks that if I can't shell out $20, then I have bigger problems and probably shouldn't be playing it.

That said, I get a lot of content isn't available in some countries and piracy is the only way some people can experience something, so, different strokes.

I can see the other argument though I don't agree with it.

Paying is obtaining a license to use a product. You own the license for as long as that payment is valid. If the validity of the license expires for some reason, you no longer have rights to use the product, whether you physically have it or not.

The difference is in licensing. Having a license to use a product that someone else created.

This is becoming a much more prevalent theme especially in computing. With physical goods, for the most part, ownership/possession of the item implies that you own the required rights to operate, use, or otherwise possess that item. Usually a license doesn't physically exist, it's more of a concept that is inexorably tied to the thing. With software however, the idea of license keys exists. If you have a license key for software, you can use the software regardless of where you got it from. Since the software can be copied, moved, duplicated, etc. The source of the actual bits the compose the software that runs doesn't matter. As long as you have a valid license key, you "own" a valid license to use the software which you paid for.

With online platforms, including, but not limited to, steam, epic Games store, Ubisoft connect, whatever.... They manage your licenses, and coordinate downloads for you, etc. The one thing I'm aware of with steam that's a benefit here is that you can get your product keys from the program and store them separately if you wish.

The problem is that not all platforms support the same format of product keys, especially for games. There's no universal licensing standard. This makes it tricky to have a product key that works where you want it to.

There's layers to this, and bluntly, unless there's wording in the license agreement that it can be revoked, terminated, invalidated, or otherwise made non-functional at the discretion of the developer that issued it, they actually can't revoke your ownership of a game, or at least the license for that game.

Application piracy (specifically for games), is when you play something without a license to do so.

They've stacked the entire system against you. Using wording in their license agreements that allows them to invalidate your license whenever they want to, and gives you no means to appeal that decision. Setting you up for litigation for piracy by using a software that you paid for when that license is revoked.

It's an insane thing to happen in my mind and there should be legislation put in place that obligates companies to offer a permanent, and irrevocable, license to software (looking at you Adobe), and also makes it much harder for companies to revoke that license. In addition, there should be a standardized licensing system, owned and operated independently from the license issuers, which manages and oversees the distribution, authentication and authorization of those licenses for them and you, something like humble bundle's system or something, where you can get license keys compatible with various platforms which can supply the software that constitutes the game you have a license for.

It should go beyond gaming.

Until such a time that the legal part of this is figured out, we'll be left with an unfair playing field, legally speaking, and piracy will be a way to have the software without a license (which is arguably illegal).

I don't like this system. I didn't ask for it. I think it should change. But legally, piracy is still illegal. The system is consumer hostile, and unfair. That fact, in and of itself, should merit something to be done about it. So far, nothing has even been proposed by governments. I'm hoping the EU makes the first move on this, and everyone follows suit. I can see them doing it too.

I'm not pirating, I'm merely copying data without involving license transfers and subscription platforms.

I fully agree with the general message, but this particular anecdote doesn't really make sense to me and can easily be waved off by anyone who disagrees with it.

If buying isn't owning, that means it's renting or borrowing.

If you pirate it, they get no money and therefore cannot rent it out to you. You cannot just steal a movie from the movie rental store or a car from a car rental place. That's stealing.

Sure, it's infinitely reproducible but that's not what this meme says. That's an unrelated argument for piracy. It draws a direct connection between the 2 relationships of buying + owning and pirating + stealing. However, one has nothing to do with the other.

When someone owns something, they are allowed to rent it out and take it back at any time. It's always been that way and that's valid.

The real argument should be "if there was no intention to buy in the first place, then piracy isn't stealing" or something like that.

Let me rephrase. I agree that piracy isn't stealing, but the fact that buying isn't owning does NOT prove that at all, nor does it have anything to do with it. It's a reason people pirate, sure, but it in no way proves that piracy isn't stealing. The phrase is an if;then statement. If one thing is true, it MEANS the other is true, which just isn't the case. Both can be true sure, but proving the first half does not prove the second half. Making one true does not instantly make the other true.

This will not make anyone at ubisoft mad. In fact, they will be glad that such a poorly crafted argument is being used against them, since it's 0 effort to disprove and dismiss it. We should raise other arguments that are logically sound if we want to convince anyone - friends, family, lawmakers - of anything.

Am I completely missing the point or is this analogy completely nonsensical?

On a side note, I condone piracy and nobody should ever give money to large media corporations. But if we use stupid arguments like this it makes us easier to dismiss.

Edit: I'm looking for discussion here. If you're going to downvote me, at least tell me why you think my argument is wrong. I'm here to learn.

why did i think pic 2 would say "adobe ceos"?