Games

Do you own the software and firmware in your car?

The navigation system might use Google Maps and requires an internet connection to function. The manufacturer may decide to no longer want to pay for Google's license and therefore disables all software - including software running the ignition, engine management, the speedometer, the center console - on the car with a momentary notice. The car becomes undrivable as a result.

Should this be legal? You didn't own the software after all.

1: that's offtopic. Neither does anyone advocate for buyers purchasing the copyright, nor does the copyrhight give the copyright owner unmitigated power to do whatever they want (aka disregard laws).

What the petition asks for is that people actually own their licensed copy and that ownership of the copy is treated the same as ownership of any other copy of any IP. For example, if you own a book, you too own a licensed copy of the book. This means that e.g. the copyright owner cannot legally stop you from reselling the copy (and believe me, they tried. But laws were enacted to stop that).

The owner of a book also doesn't have the right to unilaterally revoke your license to the book. They legally cannot put fine print somewhere into the book that dicdates that you have to return the book when they ask you to or anything like that.

The petition asks the same for games:

• Publishers need to be legally stopped from limiting the buyers from using the copy they bought.

2: That is discussed in the petition as well. I recommend that you read the petition before commenting about it.

1. And yet almost every single one had a "Buy" button on the purchase page, not a "licence" and I sure as shit didn't sign a damn thing. I act like I own them, and will continue to do so. Half the EULAs contains some illegal bullshit anyway and the "also is any of this invalidates local laws, just ignore that bit" clause is relatively a lot newer than a lot of classic games which I probably do own because of this. With the greatest respect, laws are - effectively - requests when the entire population willfully ignores them.

2. Absolutely true. And this is where I have difficulty with this initiative. I am a heavy collector and patient gamer, I get to stuff years after release. As such I have always avoided heavily on-line stuff so I can use my own schedule, and that's the sticking point here for me. In the current environment where it's easy to see network requirements, and even refund games after testing it seems like this could be handled by vote with your wallet for the most part. However, I take a very different view of the current bait-and-switch of taking games without a hard online requirement and changing the terms in some way after release, and this alone is enough to make me support the movement. Adding launchers, additional account requirements, micro transactions post release should be heavily controlled. If you don't state at release you will be adding MTX - or even DLC honestly - you shouldn't be able too in my mind. It's a different product.

I think the other thing that so many are either too young to remember, or perhaps not technical enough now, but in the 90s, you ran your own game servers, and it was awesome. It was hard back then, someone seemed an ISDN or leased line to handle the traffic and access to a decent PC or server - requirements that are now in reach of everyone with a joke connection, a multi core machine and a docker install. There's no reason this couldn't be handled that way again with the companies monetising "content packs" for the servers and letting communities flourish. But they like the control.

It's going to be interesting seeing the outcome here!