Ireland i agree, but what i found more worrying the fact that we are heading to digital only distribution, without having a clear environment, something that is clear, and something that will allow the conditions for this sort of operation, if it is a sale iam ok with that , if it is a license i am ok with that, although the prices should be way cheaper, because a license implies fees, not like a sale that you pay full price, something like netflix for instance, and also if they decide, legally speaking, that is a license, they need to establish the proper ruling for that type of transaction, that protects both ends, the user and the provider of the service in question, therefore i think not having a solid and certain ground is more worrying, because we are going to establish a transaction with so many uncertanties, what it is?, when they are going to define this once and for all?
P.S by the way i see it as a sale, heck the TOS and EULAS are based on the first rule sale, i remark the word * SALE*
Are publisher just taking too much advantage of gamers?
(93 posts)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
Perfect timing:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6485-In-the-Hall-of-the-Mountain-Dew
Posted 7 months ago # -
Jim Sterling, there's one dude who still cares.
The truly ironic thing about his point though, is that even though publishers seem to spend most of their time coming up with new and overreaching non-products, they're still absolutely terrible at making money.
The games industry pretty much stands out for its inability to cultivate a healthy business.
That's especially ironic when you consider the fact that things were fine up until 5 years ago. That's a lot of "magic bullet" business models ago. You still have mostly the exact same CEOs at the helm of those companies, happily sailing along ignoring the metallic booms of the icebergs.
It's just not working, and it seems to me like these guys are too comfortable in their offices to give a shit.
Mobile, mobile, social, social. I hear that if you stand in front of a mirror and say that about a million times, you get a billion dollars in steady revenue.
Wake. The. Fuck. Up.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Jim Sterling is an arrogant, angry, self-important 'critic' who wants nothing more than to draw more attention to himself.
Don't use him as an example of someone who gives a shit.
Posted 7 months ago # -
You guys are still missing the point. "I bought it, so its mine". You've not actually understood what it is your money has bought.
You HAVE NOT bought the game
You HAVE bought ACCESS to the gameThis 'concern' about going digital is misplaced. Because you could be buying an empty box with a download code in it. It would be EXACTLY the same thing that you are buying: ACCESS.
You have not and have never bought the data itself. Ownership has NEVER passed on to you.
By all means make defiant and bold statements that begin with you pounding your first and saying "I paid money so.." but if you fail to understand what you have actually bought in the first place then you're arguing about nothing.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
"You have not and have never bought the data itself. Ownership has NEVER passed on to you"
But do you own the physical media or device hence the sale figure, there is some change of hands in the property, hence you can do all you want to do with it, i mean the physical device used to store the access of that data, unless the user broke some rules under the copyright law of course, the end user can sell the disc that contains the game data, the end user can broke it,or can gift it, that ownership of the disc that contains the data, is very different that the ownership of nothing like the digital, hence the sale part, for example if the provider shutdown the servers i still have my disc that contains the data to play the game, with digital, for lacking of physical device, i cannot access the data to play the game, that gives different levels of ownership, even if i dont own in the end the game, i do own the access to the game, the access like you put it is lost and in control of the provider not me or the user.
And like i said, we dont know if this is a sale or a license, in physical is clear is a sale, in digital we dont know, manufacturers says is a license, but legally we dont have anything clear, we need some third party figure or body that rules this indicating what it is, what are our rights as users, and what are theirs, we are at their mercy in digital, not so in physical hence the differences, sale and license are two very different things, although the TOS and EULA are based on the first sale rule therefore they are suggesting in the end is a sale.
And like i said for me i dont care if some organization rule this digital transaction as a license or a sale, or whatever they see it worth it, i will be fine with that, but they need to establish first what it is, so all the parts involve know were their responsabilities and rights lies, i am worried about the uncertainty about the transaction ,thats all.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"But do you own the physical media or device hence the sale figure"
Nope.
You own the disc. You do not own the data on that disc.
You have bought ACCESS to the data. As part of that purchase a complimentary copy of the data is provided to you on physical media.
You do not own the data. You never have. Holding a disc in your hands means absolutely nothing.
This is why people need to understand what it is that they're buying and stop mistakenly assuming that DISC=GAME. It doesn't mean that at all.
That's why there is no difference between physical and digital delivery of the same data.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
"You HAVE NOT bought the game
You HAVE bought ACCESS to the game"Yes, you have. Simply telling people "that's not the case" doesn't change the facts of the law. I don't know where people got this crazy "a disc is just a license" bullshit, but it has absolutely no substance in law whatsoever. Your possession, your ownership.
And even if it's digital data, I still own it. Now, if I lose the data, that's my own fault, and if the place I bought it from no longer exists, they're under no obligation to replace it, but that's true of physical possessions as well. Steam is a service, the thing I buy are "goods". If its in my physical possession, it is mine, and any attempt to circumvent this is *theft*. This is a fact.
Please show me some actual proof of your claim instead of simply saying "Nope". You're backing your assumption up with absolutely nothing.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"You own the disc. You do not own the data on that disc"
That it is what i said, that we own the access to the data which is the physical disc, we own the disc, hence the sale of the disc, and that we can do a lot of things with the physical disc, that we cannot do with digital only games, i never said we own the data.
"You have bought ACCESS to the data. As part of that purchase a complimentary copy of the data is provided to you on physical media.
You do not own the data. You never have. Holding a disc in your hands means absolutely nothing"
Yes it means everything, i hold the key to the access of the data, because it was a sale, the access wast transfered to me, that part of the property is mine, the access to the contain of the disc, the data; with digital the access is only in the provider of the service hands, they hold the key, i would not play the game until the provider of the service authorize it or let me, what happens when they shut down their servers?, i would have not the access to the game, therefore owning the disc means something, at least it gives you some sort of ownership to the ways to access the data.
Therefore like i said due this differences, we need to know what applies to digital, they are not the same comparing it with physical, they are some slight differences in how we do have access the data, and how we control the access over the data, therefore like i said we need to know exactly what this type of transaction ( digital only) is, and for that it needs proper rulings that protect the user from the provider and viceversa, we need to know clearly if it is a sale like in a physical thing?, or if it is a license? or what it is?, and how the user can keep the control over the access of the data? and not leave that to the provider of the service, which is like stands right now, it is just onesided, we need to be equal with all the parts involve.
edit: i change some words, but not the sentiment, basecally i was correcting some bad spellings and writings, due the language barrier thing and that i havent yet drink my coffee.
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Manu, the only thing on the disc (or downloadable data) you don't know is the copyright and intellectual property. You *own* it. If you wanted to force your way into accessing "locked" data on a disc, you can do so, and you still wouldn't be breaking any laws. Mind you, giving other people access to it, that's definitely illegal.
The likes of Microsoft, Valve and Sony can ban you from their services for doing so but only because of the rules set down by *service* laws, not *goods* laws, which are two very different things.
Consitutional Law:
POSSESSION, intern. law. By possession is meant a country which is held by no other title than mere conquest.
2. In this sense Possession differs from a dependency, which belongs rightfully to the country which has dominion over it; and from colony, which is a country settled by citizens or subjects of the mother country. 3 Wash. C. C. R. 286.POSSESSION, property. The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man holds or exercises by himself or by another who keeps or exercises it in his name. By the possession of a thing, we always conceive the condition, in which not only one's own dealing with the thing is physically possible, but every other person's dealing with it is capable of being excluded. Thus, the seaman possesses his ship, but not the water in which it moves, although he makes each subserve his purpose.
2. In order to complete a possession two things are required. 1st. That there be an occupancy, apprehension, (q.v.) or taking. 2dly. That the taking be with an intent to possess (animus possidendi), hence persons who have no legal wills, as children and idiots, cannot possess or acquire possession. Poth. h. It.; Etienne, h.t. See Mer. R. 358; Abbott on Ship. 9, et seq. But an infant of sufficient understanding may lawfully acquire the possession of a thing.
3. Possession is natural or civil; natural, when a man detains a thing corporeal, as by occupying a house, cultivating grounds or retaining a movable in his custody; possession is civil, when a person ceases to reside in the house, or on the land which he occupied, or to detain the movable he possessed, but without intending to abandon the possession. See, as to possession of lands, 2 Bl. Com. 116; Hamm. Parties, 178; 1 McLean's R. 214, 265.
4. Possession is also actual or constructive; actual, when the thing is in the immediate occupancy of the party. 3 Dey. R. 34. Constructive, when a man claims to hold by virtue of some title, without having the actual Occupancy; as, when the owner of a lot of land, regularly laid out, is in possession of any part, he is considered constructively in possession of the whole. 11 Vern. R. 129. What removal of property or loss of possession will be sufficient to constitute larceny, vide 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 919; 19 Jurist, 14; Etienne, h.t. Civ. Code of Louis. 3391, et seq.
5. Possession, in the civil law, is divided into natural and civil. The same division is adopted by the Civil Code of Louisiana.
6. Natural possession is that by which a man detains a thing corporeal, as by occupying a house, cultivating ground, or retaining a movable in his possession. Natural possession is also defined to be the corporeal detention of a thing, which we possess as belonging to us, without any title to that possession, or with a title which is void. Civ. Code of Lo. art. 3391, 3393.
7. Possession is civil, when a person ceases to reside in a house or on the land which he occupied, or to detain the movable which he possessed, but without intending to abandon the possession. It is the detention of a thing, by virtue of a just title, and under the conviction of possessing as owner. Id. art. 3392, 3394.
8. Possession applies properly only to corporeal things, movables and immovables. The possession of incorporeal rights, such as servitudes and other rights of that nature, is only a quasi. possession, and is exercised by a species of possession of which these rights are susceptible. Id. art. 3395.There is *nothing* in law as it currently stands that can argue that a person doesn't own that which has been traded to him, *especially* if it is housed on a physical medium.
Companies, retailers or whoever else can say whatever the hell the want, but that doesn't change what the *law* itself states.
Posted 7 months ago # -
In Europe, if any company ever attempts to confiscate digital media from you, it can be taken to small claims court, and you will more than likely win. It doesn't matter if it's a "license" or not. EU law state that ownership is that of the person who paid for it, NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
Final transaction = permanent ownership.
The EU doesn't fuck around with these laws.
Posted 7 months ago # -
tl;dr version: Possession is nine tenths of the law.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Yes Michael i understand that, i compare it, although i dont like to make comparisions, with a book, do you own the book, but not the intelectual property, you can do whatever you want to do with the book, of course wihtout doing any Infringement in the copyright laws.
Also if in the case that digital is a license, then the price should be no full price, like stands today, i mean a digital game cost the same as a physical one, and the license word means a fee, therefore it shouldnt have the price we have today, only a small part or portion, therefore it seems to me the manufacturers or providers of the service, are doing things not in a good way, they want to make a sale disguised as a license, but full price, also their TOS and EULAS are based on the first SALE ruling, as it stands right now is indeed a sale, which establish a change in the property.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Claiming possession doesn't make it so.
Since the very beginning of software/data being 'sold', this is how it works. There's decades of evidence for this. There's also decades of outraged gamers who claim they're being abused by companies when, in fact, they simply have not understood what their money is buying.
You do not and have never owned the data. And, unless you happen to buy the publisher of the data in question, you never will.
Dismiss it as much as you like. People like to dismiss facts that don't serve their personal interests. Sadly, that doesn't stop it from being fact. There is decades of evidence that proves this.
And that is why, as much as gamers will rant and complain and act like they're victims, things will not change. Because they're arguing based on myth rather than reality.
You might as well be expressing concern about sailing off the edge of the world because you believe it's flat. Be as concerned as you like, you've missed the most important point.
You don't own the data. You never have. That is not what your money has paid for.
You have paid for access, not data. Nobody is disputing your 'possession' of the access. But you don't own something that was never part of the sales transaction in the first place. It's VERY simple.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
"You have paid for access, not data. Nobody is disputing your 'possession' of the access. But you don't own something that was never part of the sales transaction in the first place."
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
First of all, you'll never see physical media claim that it's a "license". Because it isn't.
If its not contractually stated, it's not legally binding.
Ever.
Secondly, you can argue all the semantics you want, but in Europe at least, if any retailer actually tries to act on what you're claiming, the small claims court can basically bend them over and completely fuck the company in the ass until they're comply. Possession laws are some of the most tightly upheld laws it.
You own it. The law says so. And you have shown absolutely nothing to back up your claim to the contrary.
Even Valve, when backed into a corner after banning users, have had to back down and give them back access to their content. Regardless, Valve is a service, and services are governed by different laws than goods.
"Since the very beginning of software/data being 'sold', this is how it works. There's decades of evidence for this."
I would very much like to see this evidence.
"Dismiss it as much as you like. People like to dismiss facts that don't serve their personal interests. Sadly, that doesn't stop it from being fact. There is decades of evidence that proves this."
Please share this evidence with me. I've quoted the very laws that govern possession and stated the stance that the EU takes on ownership laws, which is something you can easily research more into if you need to see if it's true. You haven't presented any actual facts yet. Just opinions.
"There's also decades of outraged gamers who claim they're being abused by companies when, in fact, they simply have not understood what their money is buying."
Translation: They sat and whined about it instead of enforcing their legal rights.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I never said the end user do own the data, like you said is on the publishers hands, i might want to add the developers as well, as an intelectual property, but we own the access to the data, which is the physical disc, therefore i hold the key to the access of the data, because it was a sale or "sale", the access (physical disc) was transfered to me, that part of the property is mine, the access to the contain of the disc, the data is an intelectual property of the developers/publishers; and the difference with digital only, is that the access is only in the provider of the service hands, they hold the key, i would not play the game until the provider of the service authorize it or let me, what happens when they shut down their servers?, i would have not the access to the game, therefore owning the disc means something, at least it gives you some sort of ownership to the ways of accessing the data.
Therefore to sum things up, is not for my personal interests, or that iam a selfish gamer or that is me sailing around the edge of the world, is that digital and physical are very different in nature an in transaction form, becuase the access is what is different not the data or intelectual property, right now providers claim is a license, whitout pricing it like a fee, they ask full price, like a sale with the physical media, sale means change in property, in this case change in the access for the intelectual property (data/ game), and the TOS and EULA are based on the FIRST SALE RULE, which means even in digital they are indicating/stating we own the key to the access, but we dont in reality, they hold the key to the access, because of this ambiguity we need to be clear what it is, the provider of the service needs to be clear too, in order to know their rights and responsabilities as much as we do, it is a sale like a physical thing?, it is a license?, therefore there is a fee not a full price, etc.
I want certainty in this issue for this type of transaction, not uncertainty as it stands right now, this prior asking for a digital only distribution, imagine us having this discussion without any of us giving a legal fact that serves to demostrate what it is digitl distribution and what are their rulings, because right now they are handled as a physical thing, therefore a ruling for this field, is very needed, for all parts involve, and very welcome it too.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"That makes absolutely no sense at all."
Your argument amounts to this:
I order a taxi. I sit in the taxi. I am physically in the taxi. I claim I own the taxi. I'm sat in it. I've handed money over. It must be mine.
My argument is: Know what your money is buying. We all know that you don't own the car when you pay for a taxi and to argue otherwise is folly.
Yet we have a culture of people saying how unfair it is that they don't get to keep the car after they've paid for a taxi journey.
Once you understand just what it is you have bought with your money, then you can make arguments about what you own. Fail to grasp what you have paid for and your arguments, no matter how indignantly they're delivered, fall flat.
As for Manu's post, I've rarely seen so much twisting and twisting of a concept to become self-serving and persist in claiming ownership of something that doesn't belong to you (and, strictly speaking, was never sold to you). ACCESS is what you have paid for. The method of delivery makes NO DIFFERENCE, your ACCESS is the same. The whole digital/physical thing means NOTHING. Just because, when it was physically delivered you COULD sell what wasn't yours DOES NOT MEAN you have that right. Your upset about digital is that you can no longer get away with doing something you had no right to do in the first place. You're so used to getting away with it that you genuinely present yourself as a victim when the ability to do so is taken away from you. You're like a robber complaining about the introduction of padlocks.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
Taxis are a service. Physical media are goods.
Goods are not a service.
Do you even know the basic difference between the two?
I know exactly what I'm buying. And I know that if Valve or Microsoft or anyone actually tried to argue the ownership of anything in my possession, I would be guaranteed to maintain that ownership without ever having to spend a single penny in legal aid, thanks to the laws put in place by the EU.
You can't show me a single ounce of proof of what you're claiming.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"Taxis are a service. Physical media are goods."
Physical media IS NOT data.
A retail disc IS NOT data.
You do not own the data. It is not yours. Possession of A COPY of the data that you were provided with when you BOUGHT ACCESS does not make the genuine owner's DATA belong to you. Transfer of ownership HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Conceptually, you're still arguing that paying for a taxi ride makes you the owner of the vehicle.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
Please show me proof as stated by law where the possession of data is exempt from standard ownership and goods laws.
I'll wait.
Question... as an example..l if I bought an iPad tomorrow, would I have the legal right to use the data stored on the device entirely as I saw fit?
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Ireland Michael
Question for you. Why hasn't anyone challenged this yet then? For example MS sells several varieties of Windows and they all come on the same disc. The license code you get determines which version gets installed. If all versions are on the disc you bought why doesn't everyone buy the cheapest version and demand the full fat one as it's on the disc?Posted 7 months ago # -
@ Dr. Damn.
They can lock off whatever they want. Thats perfectly legal. But the data is still there on the disc and its still yours. If you found a way to access it yourself, there's nothing they could do about it.
They can ban you from their *service*, but they can't do diddly squat about the thing you own.
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Ireland Michael
So it's ok for them to try and stop you accessing something which you own?Posted 7 months ago # -
How iam twisting it, you said:
1.-"ACCESS is what you have paid for": thats what i did said all along is the disc, which is physical not digital, like in digital only, therefore the ACCESS did change its property in the sale transaction, is on the user hands, not on the provider, not twisting it there.
2.-"The method of delivery makes NO DIFFERENCE", yes is different digital and physical are different hence the digital is a license, according to the provider, but the use the FIRST ***SALE*** RULE on their TOS and EULAS, while the physical is indeed a sale, for me the ones twisting are the providers not me, heck the ask full price for the digital as the same a physical, when license means a fee for a service, this is not the case with digital game costs, that is not twisting, is that we not agree in that point, but both are valid opinions, not twisting.
3.-"your ACCESS is the same", no is not, one is physical the DISC and the other is digital attached to an account that is hold by the provider, therefore the sale of the disc, which grant me the ownership of the access is not there, how that something that use a physical device for the access can be the same as something that you dont use something physical for running the access, that doesnt make sense, a book example which is another media fit here, i can sell the book, fire it or donate it, i have access to the person intelectual property, unless i do a violation under the copyright law, i can do everything under that premise, not twisting it.
4.-"The whole digital/physical thing means NOTHING. Just because, when it was physically delivered you COULD sell what wasn't yours DOES NOT MEAN you have that right"
If I COULD is becuase legally speaking theres nothing that prohibit it, because iam not violating or doing an infrigment of the copyright law, until i bound to that law, i can do pretty much with it what i want, becuase of the SALE of the physical thing, therefore physical means something more than digital in this regard, if you dont want to see it fine by me, but theres are differences.
5.- "Your upset about digital is that you can no longer get away with doing something you had no right to do in the first place. You're so used to getting away with it that you genuinely present yourself as a victim when the ability to do so is taken away from you. You're like a robber complaining about the introduction of padlocks"I think i didnt explain myself correctly, iam not upset or angry for that matter, iam worried and concern for the lack of certainty in the concept, digital is not physical in the means of the access, like i stated before, therefore we are going to establish a transaction based on uncertainties, thats what my worries lies, i just want a ruling of an important organization that rules this kind of things, with the overall guidences, that establish the end user rights and responsabilities as well as the provider, becuase as it stands right now the provider hold the key to the access, asking full price which is one sided, although they are based on the first SALE rule, which is very physical indeed, which is not good for all the part involve, that is not twisting, is just stating my opinion which is worth much as yours
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Dr. Damn, legally speaking, it's entirely within their right. "Pay us $10 more, and we'll give *you* a file to access other stuff that requires the file to do so." DRM (or as I like to call it "data-gating") is legal and acceptable.
That doesn't mean it's okay, but that's where the whole concept of "voting with your wallet" comes in.
But again, if you hacked your way into the files, there isn't really anything they can do about it, as long as you're not actively encouraging piracy. I can explain why this is, but I'm waiting for Joe to answer my last question first.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Your counter arguments amount to "If I can do something then I clearly have a right to it".
Absolutely not. Just because you can find a way to circumvent something does not automatically give you that right.
I could find a way to get into your house and steal your computer. Despite the fact you have not given me permission and that you have secured your house with locks. Does your computer now rightfully belong to me? Does the data on your computer rightfully become mine?
Hey, I can do it so that means I have the right to it! Yes?
No.
And Manu is still (choosing to) not grasping how this system works because he's so devoted to his perception that DELIVERY = DATA when it isn't the same thing at all.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
I never said DELIVER=DATA, i said DISC= ACCESS, so for the disc being a sale you have the property of the ACCESS passed it to you by the SALE, therefore you own the DISC=ACCESS, that means you with the physical DISC hold the key to the ACCESS, this doesnt happen with digital hence the discussion, the key is completly owned by the provider, which doesnt happen in physical.
Is like the book example, lets follow your idea DELIVER =DATA, the book the physical object, is also the delivery method according to you, but i do own that delivery in the end, to do pretty much what i can under the limits of the copyright law, the information contain in the book is the intelectual property like it is the data in the disc, which i dont own or pretend to own, but either way i can do with both (disc and book) all i want, like i said under the permits of the copyright law of course, i can sell them, fire them, or donate them, so in the end even DELIVERY=DISC=BOOK=ACCESS, therefore the SALE passed the property onto the end user to access the data or intelectual property, i dont know what i more need to grasp, maybe you should follow your own example.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I'm with Joe on this one guys
Posted 7 months ago # -
You never answered my question.
Question... as an example..l if I bought an iPad tomorrow, would I have the legal right to use the data stored on the device entirely as I saw fit?
"I could find a way to get into your house and steal your computer."
Do you enjoy picking the most irrelevant examples possible?
Owning a disc isn't the equivalent of walking into someone's house uninvited. It's the equivalent of *owning the house*.
I'm still waiting for you to show me *where* in national law any of what you're claiming is stated, by the way.
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Deacon: Why?
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.