The problem I have with this is that there’s no definition of what “owning” means. Never have individuals bought a game and then owned all rights associated with it. It was always a license that included personal use and nothing much else.
However, due to how media distribution worked, this license was generally valid forever and could be transferred to another party, and these two factors - especially the first one - make a good point: why would I enter such a license if the other side can factually nullify it at any point, while I lose that option after a certain time?
Apart from that, media piracy was never stealing in the first place. It’s about unlicensed usage and distribution of media. And rightholders can’t be surprised if people don’t license it if the construct is so stacked to their disadvantage.
Reminder:
If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing!
The problem I have with this is that there’s no definition of what “owning” means. Never have individuals bought a game and then owned all rights associated with it. It was always a license that included personal use and nothing much else.
However, due to how media distribution worked, this license was generally valid forever and could be transferred to another party, and these two factors - especially the first one - make a good point: why would I enter such a license if the other side can factually nullify it at any point, while I lose that option after a certain time?
Apart from that, media piracy was never stealing in the first place. It’s about unlicensed usage and distribution of media. And rightholders can’t be surprised if people don’t license it if the construct is so stacked to their disadvantage.