• samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    But without a way to enforce it, it was (and still is) functionally identical to owning them outright. What it’s legally called is irrelevant.

    • dufkm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I guess I personally don’t really care about the legal aspect, I’ll make my own moral assessments on what I find reasonable to pirate etc. regardless of legality. Law only occasionally overlaps with ethics.

      But on a philosophical level, a rethorical question I ask myself is; what does it really mean to “own” anything digital? I have to ponder on that for a while.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Before the internet, the concept of game ownership was much easier. Whatever the seller chose to call it, as long as I had complete control over when and where I could play the game, I owned it. I would consider any game where the ability to play it cannot be willfully taken from me by digital means to be owned by me. Nowadays, that mostly applies to cracked games or systems only. No game that requires an online connection to play would apply.