376
What surprise do you have prepared Nintendo?
(lemmy.world)
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 Jul 2026
376 points (100.0% liked)
memes
22150 readers
2837 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Valve started it. Valve invented the "we can violate copyright laws because it's on a computer". Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.
They did not invent that lol. Music companies did.
Music companies weren't selling games.
What a blind distinction
In a legal sense, media is media. The laws were established for music before digital games were mainstream, and were then applied to games.
The iTunes Store is older than the Steam Store.
Itunes didn't sell games.
The argument is about digital goods not just video games, but for the record they absolutely did.
You didn't read your own link. From your own Wikipedia link: First game released in 2006. 2 years after Steam.
"the argument isn't about games"? Then where is the non gaming publisher in the OP gif above?
They most definitely did. Maybe you should learn about the stuff you’re talking about before posting things that are completely wrong.
Maybe you should look up history before downvoting:
https://www.macworld.com/article/181577/ipodgames-2.html
First game on itunes was 2006- 3 years after Steam.
I do not see what your link has to do with your comment. iTunes did sell games, your comment was factually incorrect.
Books aren't games, either, but you brought them up. Why are different forms of media valid when they support your argument but not when they don't?
That stunt was invented by the music industry first. It was a hit with publishers. Valve helped the publishers do the same shit with video games and it's still awful, but they weren't the inventors.
It boils down to the same issues of predatory copyright laws that have been perverted into a twisted mockery of the good intentions they were initially supposed to serve.
What copyright law did valve violate?
I can only assume that you think that copyright law are laws granting rights to copy holders, rather than laws granting the rights to the creator to control who can make copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
That a new law was created to say "if it's on a computer you don't have rights" doesn't mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It's the same as the current anti repair laws.
What law?
The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren't sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it's use, and you can't sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.
I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.
Laws don't expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?
Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn't ruled until 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.
You aren't necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.
The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn't necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn't a law. That's why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.
Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don't think you're even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?
Again, what law is being broken by steam?
First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.
We can't just say that they're breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.
It absolutely did not say that.
17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).
Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don't apply because you bought a "license".
But that doesn't change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.
Court rulings aren't law.
The first link you sent, that I keep talking about, said in the first paragraph that it is 100 yo and superceded 50 years ago:
Regarding
17 U.S.C. § 109(a)which is what superceded it, the 2010 version does mention computer programs but does not mention games except for coin operated games. It doesn't grant you the right to copy (which digit transfer does) and more importantly 109(d) explicit says the right doesn't extend to people who possess the software by means of rental/lease/loan/otherwise without acquiring ownership of it, which is exactly the exemption about selling licenses instead of copies, that these digital stores use to deprive you of ownership. It clearly exempts steam's whole model.Checking the most recent version (2024) leaves this pretty much unchanged.
I agree with you that this is bad, but that doesn't make it illegal.
However we need to be careful that this doesn't fuck FOSS software, which relies heavily on license enforcement.