149
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 02 Apr 2026
149 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
38925 readers
1244 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Steam states in their EULA that your purchase a license to play the game but not own it
So does GOG dude…
where
Their Eula….?
their eula does not state that you do not own the games.
Section 2.1:
"GOG services" and "GOG content" are things like the GOG website itself, not the copies of the games you buy from it.
GOG suspending your right to use their service is analogous to a brick-and-mortar store trespassing and blacklisting you: in the same way that getting trespassed from GameStop doesn't entitle them to break into your house and confiscate everything you've previously purchased from them, getting kicked off GOG does not and legally cannot invalidate your ownership -- not "licensing," ownership -- of the games you've previously purchased from them.
Okay then, I guess GoG is lying the same way Steam is after all. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but concede that I was wrong.
"Licensed not sold" is still bunk, though. They do not have the right to confiscate games you've previously purchased, no matter what their fucking User Agreement claims.
Their user agreement doesn't claim they can remove files from your computer. If your account gets suspended you no longer have access to the game you paid for unless you have previously downloaded and stored it.
I bought Witcher 3 on GOG, but I don't currently have it saved anywhere. If GOG suspends my account, I can no longer access the content I paid for
Then GOG must be restricting access only to the service itself, not to your property, despite what the text says.
You still own the copy of the game; it's hardly GOG's fault if you lost or destroyed it.
Expecting to have continued access to re-download indefinitely is like buying a physical book from a brick-and-mortar store, throwing it in the trash, and then expecting to be allowed to swing back by the place later to grab another copy off the shelf. Sure, it'd be nice if the store let you do that, but it would be silly to claim that not letting you do it somehow meant you never owned your copy of the book.
What part of “license” is so hard for you to comprehend?
https://programming.dev/comment/23071365
points two and three are for different things.
No they aren't. Both mean that you don't own the game.
You're right that they aren't for different things, but neither mean that you don't own the game. Both are referring to your continued permission to access your GOG account itself.
Since when is a license owning the game?
It’s right there, unless you make up new terms or ignore the established legal terms.
They don’t offer games to buy, only licenses, so how can you ever own the game…?
Stop taking legal advice from your adversary!
I can claim that this comment is "licensed" such that, by reading it, you now owe me a million dollars. But does that make it true? If you really think so, PM me to arrange payment!
"Since when is a license owning the game" is a nonsensical question, because the entire concept of the "license" is fiction to begin with. (In the context we're talking about, of goods as opposed to services.)
Buying a copy of a copyrighted work has always meant buying a copy, from the dawn of copyright law straight through to today. It has never legitimately meant "licensing" anything.
You buy a paper book, you own that copy of the book.
You buy a music record, you own that copy of the music.
You buy a DVD of a movie, you own that copy of the movie.
You have always owned the individual copy (not copyright; that's a different thing) of the work you purchased. It has never been different than that.
The only reason copyright cartel shysters have weaseled their way in to pretend otherwise, is that (unlike those other forms of media), you have to copy the software to at least your RAM, if not your hard drive, in order to use it, rather than consuming it directly. Because of this, the shysters claim that you need some kind of additional permission to actually use the software you bought, instead of just admiring your shiny plastic coaster.
But guess what! That incidental copying has a specific carve-out that makes it not count for the purpose of invoking copyright law. In reality, there is nothing to license. The "EULAs" grant you no 'consideration' and thus fail to qualify as a valid contract. You own the individual copy of the software just like you always did, with your books and your music and your movies.
So you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Cool.
Prove me wrong.
And do it by citing the law or the courts, not the adverse party.
Because I didn't need to mention it separately. There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game and a downloaded one; you have all the same ownership rights in both cases.
Exactly! And neither is software, as you literally just admitted!
I am explicitly making as clear a distinction as I can between "holding the copyright" and "owning an individual copy" in order to emphasize that I am not talking about the former. I'm genuinely trying to be as precise as humanly possible, and I'm honestly baffled that you still somehow got it so backwards.
You realize that just because something applies in one context doesn't mean it applies the same way in some entirely different context, right?
Also, by the way, not having a license to operate a vehicle on public roads isn't the same thing as not being allowed to own a car. Perhaps it's you who is struggling to understand WTF you're talking about.
You first.
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this. There’s also plenty of precedence for this, so don’t even bother trying to bloviate down that alley, it’s a dead end, sorry. We know your angle and game.
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that, so no, they aren’t the same thing at all, and your trying to claim they are just shows how dumb and ignorant on this matter you are.
You really have no idea why you’re talking about, you’re using terms incorrectly and are ignoring your own examples.
That's a textbook circular argument. You're trying to argue that things are licenses because they're licenses.
What, standing up for property rights? Do you have some sort of problem with that?!
Yes you can! If you don't keep the original (or any other copy) for yourself. Then you're actually selling your (albeit format-shifted) copy, not making new copies (plural). It's doing things that increase the total number of people who have it that makes copyright law kick in; otherwise it's just reselling an individual good.
And yes, the same applies to a downloaded file. It's still just format-shifting!
If you think that's wrong, cite the "all hella kind" of laws it breaks. Surely it'll be easy for you, being so confident.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
Edit: I brain farted, and think I mixed up terms. Aleatory contracts are still valid, the issuers just have to withstand higher scrutiny if challenged.
No it isn't; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you're not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download -- i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself -- but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
What else ya got?
And these are the terms of use for that purchase. If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract. If those terms include that you don’t later publish videos of them on social media and then you do, you open yourself up to being sued, even though after the service has been provided you are no longer receiving an active benefit.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as "terms of use for that purchase;" it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
We're talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
I’m not sure how you’re getting to those conclusions, but it doesn’t make sense to me and clearly my conclusions aren’t making sense to you. Have a good night.
lol no they aren’t.
EULAs are bunk. Quit buying the lies of copyright cartel shysters.