Copyright infringement (piracy) has never been theft. The statement about purchasing and ownership gives ground to see creating more of something to be the same as taking something.

Plus you don't own games on steam, you've purchased a license. If you owned them you could resell them.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

plus you don't own games on steam

I think you misread my comment somehow. I never said you did, just that they're good about maintaining access to content that gets pulled from the market for one reason or another.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean I'm pretty sure that if the owner of some IP actually asked them to remove it from peoples' libraries due to them stopping sales on Steam, they would legally have to do it.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Probably, but while I can't say it hasn't happened it's certainly not common. I don't have a count but I know I have a handful of stuff that were pulled years ago. Alot of it is tedious rights crap with music and the like which makes them ineligible for sale.

I imagine in the case of steam, there's not much reason to give a crap. They're not paying to store the files. Plus, while we all have known the days of "purchased" content being stripped were coming, who wants to be the company to really pop that lid?

Now that a few companies have broached the policy maybe we'll see more of it in the gaming space, but idk letting steam hold onto a copy of game files is also less of an "investment" than storing something locally and streaming it.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes you did. You said if you buy something on steam you own it.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps the comment entirely about how we don't truly own anything digital that EXPLICITLY states "I'm aware of the legal reality of content ownership" isn't the best place to be a stout contrarian for no reason other than to puff your chest with an "um, ackchyually?"

I used common language commonly used to describe the state of having paid for a product because "but you've paid for a digital license to access said content which offers no sense of ownership which can be revoked at any time for any reason" is tedious and pointless.

The intent, purpose, and meaning of my content is clear. You've added nothing to the conversation, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

It's clear words are just vibes to you

[–] Vanix@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Of course I'm aware of the legal reality of content ownership"

How did you read this sentence then not get the implication he meant 'own a license than can be revoked' when he then used the word own? This is lemmy, everyone knows that implication for digital "ownership"

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

I can own a DVD that's digital ownership.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

While I don't particularly see harm coming to a multibillion dollar corporation if someone torrents a 20 year old movie, piracy is still theft in the sense that something with value was had for zero dollars. The "copying vs taking" argument is irrelevant. Whether or not you're being charged for direct ownership of a tangible item, or being charged for a 1 time viewing of an item, circumventing that agreement is still theft.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

So if I enjoy a sunset it's theft because nobody got paid?

[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If I enter a theater through the backdoor without paying, is that theft?

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, it's trespassing and you could be arrested for it not stealing.

[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ok, so what's difference?

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

They're literally different legal concepts just like speeding isn't murder.

[–] ssladam@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I don't disagree, but I definitely do not agree fully with your sentiment. "theft" implies a loss to the owner. (and sorry to folks in the other side, "piracy" also implies theft/loss)

So if folks can sit on top of a skyscraper and look into a ball park to watch the game, it's not theft, but they are enjoying something of value without paying for it, and society generally accepts this behavior in that case. But not if you splice your neighbor's cable to watch for free. (is that even still possible?)

Maybe call it, "involuntary gratis"? It implies some harm, but not on the same degree as theft.