this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
273 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

15465 readers
409 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] agentTeiko@piefed.social 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't get Sony argument at all the concept has been clear for decades in the art world. The game we purchase is just like a print of a painting and we own the print. They own the original and the artist still owns the copy right and can make more prints off that original. I can turn around and sell my print without selling the original.

Same with books. I buy a copy of the book, I don't buy "The Book". I purchase an item that contains a copy of the book and I own that item, but I can't claim that I wrote that book and that I have copy rights of it because I didn't buy the rights of it.

We could do the same but you know, GREED.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If purchasing isn't owning, then pirating isn't a copyright violation.

(let alone stealing, which CVs never were.)

(You wouldn't violate the copyrights of a bear.)

ETA: Maybe, just maybe, if a more enlightened age emerges from this fine mess, we'll actually get some consumer protections regarding digital property, such as guarantees to host downloadable content for a minimum timeframe, and the right and mechanism by which to transfer ownership.

[–] rollerbang@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Heh, used games, like if a game can be "used".

[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well, if they called them "previously owned", it'd undermine their current attempts at fraud.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Used undermines it too. Their argument is that only one game exists, so you can't sell a used one.

Yes, but they're banking on "used" sneaking right past the bullshit filters. At least, they were. 🤞🏼

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 day ago

Back in the before times, you could trivially wear out the media. A floppy disk only lasted so long, a CD could get scratched and damaged.

Just like a book can wear out in another thread.

The content of said medium is information and that doesn't "get used up".

[–] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 14 points 2 days ago

I'll give Tom's Hardware credit for good coverage on this one, no BS, and labeling it news and not an editorial.