this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
672 points (99.3% liked)
Greentext
8791 readers
687 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
๐ค Um, akshually you still don't OWN the games, it's still just a license (has been since at least the SNES era if not earlier). The difference is that since you can digitally maintain your own complete DRM free copies of the install media, it's the physical equivalent of "having the game cartridge" (for old systems without online patches). In other words, if the company says the license is no longer valid then they can't prevent you from installing/copying/backing-up anyway.
It's just important to note that depending on your local laws, it's still not true ownership, but more like "possession".
The word "own" in this context refers to the fact that you can keep a private copy of the game for yourself. What you are arguing is that the consumer does not own the copyrighted assets used.
It's like saying that even though I bought a Toyota Camry, I don't actually own it because I'm not allowed to make a copy of it and sell it. You could use that logic to say no one really owns anything. Maybe youd have a point, but not really in the context if what anyone else here is saying.
You can sell your Camry...
I can resell the Camry I bought, but I cannot copy the complete design of Toyota's Camry, build it and sell it as such.
Legally, you own a copy of a book if you buy the book even if you don't also buy the copyright for the book, so wouldn't be allowed to make copies (beyond the single backup copy your allowed to make in case the first is damaged that you're required to destroy if you ever stop owning the one you bought). This also applied to physical copies of video games, at least when they were new. In the US, this is part of what's known as the First Sale Doctrine, but other territories typically have stone equivalent even if it doesn't have a name.
About a century ago, book publishers tried putting a licence in copies of books and claiming that if you bought them, you were only buying the licence, but stopped after courts decided that you'd still bought a copy of the book and a copy of the text of the licence, but hadn't become party to the licence. When game (and other software) publishers tried it later, they were basically just allowed to, even though there's not really anything that makes the First Sale Doctrine any less applicable to games than books.
I see your point, a few years ago while playing Halo on the xbox a guy said he pwned me. I later learned that pwned stood for owned. Since then I'd been worried that I got cloned (copied). Thank you for clarifying.
You literally download the install files onto your pc.
Even if gog went down forever, you get to keep those files unless you delete them.
Well that sucks if so, but still, if it doesn't stand in the way of using the games offline I'm happy so long as the software police doesn't knock on my door