How do you refute this without sounding mad?
>>746611925Huh????????
>>746611925Why would i be mad? I was aware i was only buying permission to download a bunch of data for over a decade.
Now do this but with digital money
>>746611925>go to mcburgers>buy burger>dont actually own the burger because then nobody else would be able to order one
>>746611925PC vegans are actually stupid enough to believe it so I wouldn't put it past snoys who are near equals in their regard to cult fanaticism.
>>746612238>food analogy and false equivalence
ok so lets go ahead>nobody is stupid enough they believe the money in the bank is theirs>because then only one person could own moneyi'll go to sleep
>>746611925They're called "copies"
>>746612310You can legally transact that money so obviously you own it
>>746611925>You see, if we recognize ownership of a digital copy, then it would mean only a single human in the world would be the owner!!!>It's all so hecking easy goyims, I don't understand why your stupid minds don't understand it!!!Can they be less obvious?
>>746612379so i can download the game and give it to my brother so obviously i own it
>>746612238corpos would make eating a service and suck the burger out of your system if they could
>>746612310Not quite>everyone has different money numbers in the bank>when one number goes up, it's because another went down>therefore no one owns the same numberI abstracted it to hell but i assume you get it.
>>746611925But they are correct. You can't own digital media
>>746611925>without sounding mad?
>>746612448>>when one number goes up, it's because another went downnot always the case
>>746612424You can't own unlicensed bootleg copies of media, no. It's considered illicit property.
>>746611925First Nintendo, now sNoy, to the list of major publishers I will only pirate.Keep talking, corporate heads! I fucking love saving money.
ummm someone needs to tell gog about this
>>746611925If they were stupid enough to buy digital games then they are definitely stupid enough to think they own them. You see Steamies here constantly talking about how they “own” their rentals and about how muh gaben is so trustworthy that he’ll let them make backups of everything if Steam ever shuts down. Literally a cult.
>>746611925For years on years, well before digital, people commonly referred to the purchase as "buying a copy of <thing>"We all knew we weren't buying the rights to the IP so noone else could have it. But we still had an understanding that we were buying something we personally owned.
>>746612259Funny that you attack pc and snoy in the same post where you complain about fanatic cults
>>746612531>You can't own unlicensed bootleg copies of mediain your country, not in mine
>>746612467if you can't own it then you can't steal it :)
>>746612370You didn't buy ownership of a copy, you bought the right to copy and paste data over an internet connection and execute it in a device with the account associated with that right.
>>746612521I did say i abstracted it to hell.
>>746611925Sir, are you telling me it's impossible to duplicate something digital?
>inb4 that one mongoloid who brags about how he cracks the games that he paid for instead of just pirating them in the first place Genuinely one of the most embarrassing posters on /v/.
>>746612584What country do you live in?
>>746612584I won't question your ability to copy something or the effort law enforcement puts agaisnt it, but in what country you live where you can legally own illegal copies of protected media?
you dont actually own your car because other copies of the same model exist
>>746612709probably one not owned by kikes
>>746611925I won't buy any Playstation games, but I will play them.
>>746612617true, when pirating is so easy, paying for a game feels more like donating to a cause
>>746612617Piracy isn't theft because it's copyright infringement instead. so yeah you're right, you can't steal from them.
>>746612705Gotta make sure that 30% cut ends up in His pocket
>>746611925Yes, people are that stupid. People are even stupid enough to think video games, which are inherently digital, magically become physical based on what storage media they're on.Doesn't make Sony any less scummy.
>>746612874True. Gabe won’t give him his daily semen rations if he doesn’t.
>>746612823and AI is going to make copyright null and void
>>746612763If you're too embarassed to tell an American where you live don't worry, that's completely normal and expected behavior. I only asked because I knew you wouldn't tell me.
>>746612259Those lawyers are talking about deluded people like you, dumbass tendie.
>>746612947I'm not him, anon.
>>746612940Thank you for sharing that thought with me. I appreciate it.
>>746612990He didn't answer either so my point still stands now, doesn't it anon.
>>746612975I disagree, they were talking about deluded people like you actually.
>>746612543Don't worry anon, they make it perfectly clear that they are selingl licenses
>>746612323It's an exact equivalent to their retarded argument, the lawyers are conflating a copy of GTA VI with the intellectual property of GTA VI and Anton is conflating a burger with the burger recipe
>>746611925And that one person is me. I´m the rightful owner of GTA 6. As such i´m owed a share of every license transaction.
>>746613126Classic Anton
>>746613051well i was smoking and now i'm going to sleep so last reply from mespanish but i guess its the same for everything on the first part here, have fun
>>746613126Except you can factually own a burger that you bought.
>>746611925So if I don’t own it when I purchase it with my own money, then I am not actually stealing anything when I pirate it. There is no ownership
>>746611925If you can't own digital games, piracy is not a crime. There's no way other companies will let Sony go to court with this stupid argument.
>>746612823There's no such thing as copyright. Everyone has a right to copy and reproduce information. It's called being human.
>>746613259Until it decays
>>746613259And you can factually own your digital game copy that you bought.
HELP SONYI NEED YOUR LAWYERSSOMEBODY STOLE ALL MY OLD BOOKS AND TAX FILINGS CAR INSURANCE PDFSAND THAT SOMEBODYWAS ME!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>746613254That doesn't counter my point that it's still not your legal property in Spain.
>>746613106are they going to come to my house and delete the installers off my pc?
>>746613456No you can't.
>>746613526Yes you can.
>>746613259>you can't own flipped bits on your own hard drive
So if I can't own a copy, who owns my copy of Mein Kampf?
>>746613582Correct, you can't own digital media.
>>746613617The copyright owner.
>>746613617He's in heaven now anon.
>>746611925lawyers are a career where you are paid to lieautomatic argument dismissal to try to appeal to authority on that
>>746613642Can you own a hard drive?
>>746613690What's the answer?
>>746613642>anon was born after DRM became mandatory for purchased digital mediaScary to see how effective this is on zoomer minds.Imagine what it'll be like once streamboxes and physical buybacks are a thing.
>>746611925Then how do people own their physical games?
>corps want to change the definition of ownership so they can control the supply and demand entirely, also as a convenient way to siphon more money from consooomers aka infite-money glitch>normal non-cucked people think if you buy something then you should own it and dgaf about a corporations bottom line or being sucked dry for shittier and shittier "products" that can be magically *poofed* away the second more money can be extracted from themany other argument is just some tranny from leddit trying to talk with a corporations dick in their mouth
>>746613758Yes. You can own a hard drive, and hard drive contain information. You can therefore own copies of information, just like you can own copies books. Digital media is no different from physical media.
>>746611925Experts say sony lawyers should stop playing dumb acting as if they don't realize what an IP is vs a digital good.
>>746613872>thus making discourse impossibleTumblrtards run Snoy, apparently. Would explain Concord too.
>>746611925>digital files can be easily copied in seconds>only 1 person could buy the gameI'm not retarded enough to understand this
>>746613872There's no such thing as intellectual property.
>>746613859False. Although you can own the hard drive, the unlicensed and digital media on it are unownable.
>>746611925I’m sure the the EULA you claim to have read and agree to is quite specific regarding such things.
>>746613872No they are talking about the digital good and not the IP.
>>746611925Conflating IP and a product is such a bullshit move.
>>746614101The fuck you mean it's unownable? It's just a series of flipped transistors. All the information on a hard drive is physical. You own it.
>>746614050>Intellectual property (IP) refers to intangible creations of the human mind—such as inventions, artistic works, designs, and symbols—that are legally owned and protected
>>746614220Creations of the human mind are not property. It's physically impossible to own an idea.
>>746614219Unownable meaning not your legal property. You have no rights of ownership over it.
>>746614251I'm unwilling to correct your false beliefs.
>>746614278Why not? Because a guy in a fancy hat said so?
>>746614334Explain to me how you can physically own an idea.
>>746611925I own my copy of it, just like I own my copy of a book and if you take the book from me it's actual theft by legal definition
>>746614196The IP is the product. That's how software works. It's not a physical object that can transfer ownership, it's an infinitely copiable program. They are simply allowing individuals to make a copy of the program, and then place restrictions on how the copy can be used, to protect their right to copy it, hence "copyright". I think the problem is, 99% of people are too low IQ to understand how this stuff works, and even when I explain it in very simple language they still don't get it.
>>746614380No thanks.
>>746614448Defeat acknowledged.
Amazing how many retards itt are taking a stand against their own consumer rights.
>>746614432If you buy a book, you actually own the book.If I copy the book and start giving away copies, I've broken copyright law.Video games should be the exact same
>>746614353>Why not?Because digital media is not protected by the exhaustion principle.
>>746614432People don't intuitively understand it because it's nonsense made up by the government. "Copyright" is a state monopoly originally designed to prevent the spread of sanctioned books. It has nothing to do with property rights, which are God-given.
>>746614480We weren't debating anything.
>>746611925Then pirating isn't stealing.
>>746614545It is in my interest that copywrite protection and licenses exists. Without it, there would be no reason for Rockstar to exist at all. The moment they created GTA 1 and sold 1 copy, that person could sell USBs of that game outside of a Gamestop and that would be legal, meaning he would get all the sales and Rockstar/Gamestop would get 0, meaning no GTA 2, let alone 6.
>>746614545Because people making fun of Sony makes them sad
>>746614591Why not? Because a guy in a fancy hat said so?
>>746614571But they are treated in literally the exact same way. A physical book is ownable, a digital one is not, under the same exact protection from the same exhaustion principle that determines that a physical game is ownable but a digital game is not
>>746614758>If I can't retract every single copy of GTA there's no point in making itIf that's how Rockstar feels then I agree, they shouldn't exist
>>746614545I'm sure they read your post and got angry
>>746614773No, physical/digital is a meaningless distinction made up for the sake of robbing you of your rights.
>>746614758Right, since as we all know literature and art never existed before copyright protections. Art magically popped into existence in 1710. Didn't exist beforehand.
>>746614770Not sure. Good question and thanks for asking however. Do you have any more questions for me or are we done speaning now?
Using philosophy is gonna be a big win in courtLmfao
>>746614870There have been printing, publishing and censorship laws since the dawn of written information in some variation or another. Because when you wrote down something useful, and wanted to produce and sell that, and your neighbor started doing the same, you bitched and moaned to a legal representative who cut off their hands for theft for being a complete cunt.
>>746614869As a physical media owning God no my rights haven't been infringed by your limited digital slopfronts.
>>746614996Goldberg and fitgirl reinforce my rights
>>746611925This is one of those things that is so profoundly stupid that I can't think of a response
>>746614987Yes, just like state-sanctioned monopolies existed since forever. That doesn't make it good.
>>746614870Are you ever capable of speaking honestly or do you always need to run your text through some sort of jaded sarcasm or greentext filter to protect yoruself from criticism?
>>746615090You're confused because you couldn't even refute my original point that allowing some chink to sell USBs of GTA 6 outside of a game store is bad for us as consumers who want to see GTA 7.
>>746615040Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it.
>>746615092If you want a translation: art doesn't require monopoly protections in order to exist. Historical evidence and observation of current reality is proof of that.
>Video games have operated the same way for decades>Literally no problems with the law around it >Now there is a semantics fight over nothing because journalists have nothing to report on
>>746615149Hey I appreciate you, bud! Have a blessed day!
>>746615162Art doesn't have monopoly protections to begin with. Protecting your creation isn't a monopoly.
>>746615138Chinks already sell USBs of GTA games. Piracy is commonplace world-wide and yet services like Steam (and GTA) are thriving. You don't need monopoly protections in order to make money from software.
Physical games don't exist anymore because they don't read off the disk when you play anymore, you put in the disk to install it onto the storage drive. What do you call a game installed on a storage drive? A digital game.
>>746611925so you're saying i don't own this car i bought just cause theres thousands of the same car that was mass produced? well shit
>>746611925Movies? Tapes? VHS? Music CDs or vinyls, or cassettes?
>>746615224Copyright grants are monopoly protections. It's literally what they are, and the only thing they can be. They have nothing to do with property rights, as evidenced by the complete arbitrary nature (e.g., how long they last).
>>746615209It's not a semantics argument. If you want to see a semantics argument look at this guy calling property a monopoly >>746615162Or this guy calling two known and distinct formats of media the same thing because he's uaing digital in a reductive manner >>746615261
>>746611925God you guys are boring and depressing.It's a click bait headline with one line that takes a single line and removes it from context to make you enraged. None of you will read the article to even see the context. The line isn't even directed at the public. It's directed at the other attorney he is talking to. It's a few people in a court room having a discussion that will last months. The only reason the headline exists is to make you made and generate fractions of a penny on ad revenue. You guys are like dogs that just bark at everything without understand what it is . :( Depressing and boring.
>>746615413The semantic distinction is important because ideas not property. You're equating a bad thing (monopoly grant) with a good thing (property). Ideas are not cannot be property.
>>746611925>nobody believes they own the thing they boughtThese are some pretty shitty lawyers, they need to read the Talmud more if they want better loopholes and Jewish pipul hasbara chutzpah
I just realized that a monkey with infinite time and a keyboard that only has 0 and 1 on it will develop all videogames ever made and it's impossible to take any legal action against him for having those games
>>746615340>Copyright grants are monopoly protectionsNo they are exclusive rights protections. Exclusive rights to profit from your idea is not the same as exclusive rights to profit from all ideas. Other people can have their own exclusive rights and protected ideas of their own so it's not a monopoly.
>>746611925
>>746615512False, ideas can be property. This is called intellectial property or IP for short.
I dont really care, I dont buy videogames since 10 years ago, I just emulate.
>>746614632>property rights [...] are God-given.Proof?
>>746615576>Exclusive rights to profit from your idea is not the same as exclusive rights to profit from all ideasYes it is. It's no different from giving successful merchants a monopoly over trade (which was once common practice). The only way it would be different is if ideas were property, in which case they would not require monopoly grants in the first place. They'd be treated the same as real property rights. They're not, because doing so would lead to utter insanity. Intellectual property is state-created fiction to justify old monopolistic practices defended by fools and/or greedy people.
>>746613859Can you own copies of copyrighted material downloaded without the copyright holder’s permission on that hard drive?
>>746613515Doesn't seem particularly relevant to the discussion of ownership
>>746614841You do seem mad.
>>746615627Is North Korea a democratic republic? Does a state calling something by a name make it true?
>>746615413It's not reductive because if the disc is only there to let you play and not be read then it's a glorified cd-key to let you play off the storage drive
>>746615863What's your source for why you beleive this to be true?
Who gets hurt if I take a photo of every page of a book for myself
>>746615920That would be you projecting your emotional state onto me.
>>746615925What's the answer?
>>746616112It's called critical thinking. But if you're asking a genuine question and want to know more about the subject, I suggest Mises institutes articles like this one: https://mises.org/online-book/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/10-monopoly-and-competition/7-patents-and-copyrights
>>746612467They said man couldn't fly but look at us now
>>746612360cool it with these antisemitic comments
>>746616276This article agknowleges everything I have said as true. It is a proposal to change things. Are you incapable of underatanding the difference between the factual observed reality we live in and the changes you want reality to be?
>>746613386>she doesnt know
>>746616547Anon, are you suggesting I didn't acknowledge these state protections are real? I said their name is misleading, which they are. There is no such thing as "copy rights". There's also no such thing as "intellectual property". Property rights are granted by God, not the state.
>>746614101Then I am impounding the publisher's property for leaving it within my property beyond the allowed period
>>746616840>Anon, are you suggesting I didn't acknowledge these state protections are real?Yes I'm accusing you of that. >There's also no such thing as "intellectual property". Property rights are granted by God, not the state.Exhibit A and B
>>746611925If I can't own a digital game, how come I have complete games downloaded in my PC, and the corporations that own the source code can't do jack shit to take them away from meExplain without getting mad
Nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own books, because then only one person could buy the bible.
>>746612238you don't own it. your gut is just renting it for a day or so before you shit it out, your shit gets used as fertilizer for the wheat, lettuce, tomatos, hay for cows etc that will grow for the next burger that you will then have to buy again
>>746614758So you say Gamestop wouldn't get GTA 2, let alone 6, because they allow niggers to loiter around their store and sell games without giving Rockstar a cut.And that person, in front of one Gamestop, eating all the copy production costs, spending manhours, doing free promo for a game no one heard about, from a small indie studio? Sounds like a cool guy, I would love to have a man like that, so I can skip all the shovelware at the store.
>>746614758As if copyright did anything to inhibit GTA 1 piracy. Even my tech illiterate parents managed to get a copy on the family PC
