Is Rockstar's removal of 18 songs from the Steam version of San Andreas legal?

[Little Gray]

Can you demonstrate this legally? Just saying "you're entitled" doesn't actually make it so.

It doesn't matter because gamers are clueless and can't fight for their rights even if their actual lives depended on it.

I'm not sure about the US, but in continental Europe (UK excluded) this is illegal due to a number of consumer protection acts and general civil rights that can't be excluded regardless of what's in the contract. Things such as EULA and TOS are not legally binding because they go above and beyond the actual laws of most countries. You can't do that in most Europe. That's one of the reasons all of these corporations are trying to write these trans-atlantic trade agreements. They want to put themselves above the law.
EULA and TOS literally violate some of the civil and constitutional rights, which renders them legally powerless. For example, clicking to accept the TOS can't be considered a legally binding act because it happens after you already payed for a product. There are a lot of things wrong with this. Another interesting thing is that you can't give up any of your rights by signing or clicking something. That clause would immediately be without any legal consequences. Like it was never there. Sometimes the existence of a certain clause can be so damaging to the contract, it would kill the contract entirely. And it's always in the service of the weaker party (the consumer). So if you were to sign a contract that says you can't file a class action lawsuit, in most of Europe that wouldn't mean a god damn thing. It's your consumer right to file a class action lawsuit, and no amount of legal wordplay can take that away from you. Unless these TPP things become our reality. So there isn't just one way to protect yourself from these practices. You can do it in several ways. Just look through the EULA or TOS and compare it to the laws of your country and international laws if they apply instead.

You are wrong on almost everything you just said.

Updates like this are perfectly legal since they do not fundamentally change the game and they are entirely optional. Companies are allowed to provide updates that change the game in minor ways such as this one even if it removes some stuff.

In a way you can legally sign away your right to a class action lawsuit. A company can legally put in a clause that requires you to go through arbitration at their expense before filing a lawsuit. Since they often use binding arbitration it means that legally you can not successfully sue them. You can still file a suit but if it ever went to court it would immediately be throw out and you would end up in a shit ton of trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[J Tyran]

Can you demonstrate this legally? Just saying "you're entitled" doesn't actually make it so.

It doesn't matter because gamers are clueless and can't fight for their rights even if their actual lives depended on it.

I'm not sure about the US, but in continental Europe (UK excluded) this is illegal due to a number of consumer protection acts and general civil rights that can't be excluded regardless of what's in the contract. Things such as EULA and TOS are not legally binding because they go above and beyond the actual laws of most countries. You can't do that in most Europe. That's one of the reasons all of these corporations are trying to write these trans-atlantic trade agreements. They want to put themselves above the law.
EULA and TOS literally violate some of the civil and constitutional rights, which renders them legally powerless. For example, clicking to accept the TOS can't be considered a legally binding act because it happens after you already payed for a product. There are a lot of things wrong with this. Another interesting thing is that you can't give up any of your rights by signing or clicking something. That clause would immediately be without any legal consequences. Like it was never there. Sometimes the existence of a certain clause can be so damaging to the contract, it would kill the contract entirely. And it's always in the service of the weaker party (the consumer). So if you were to sign a contract that says you can't file a class action lawsuit, in most of Europe that wouldn't mean a god damn thing. It's your consumer right to file a class action lawsuit, and no amount of legal wordplay can take that away from you. Unless these TPP things become our reality. So there isn't just one way to protect yourself from these practices. You can do it in several ways. Just look through the EULA or TOS and compare it to the laws of your country and international laws if they apply instead.

If anyone wants proof of this go and check Steams TOS, it basically states "not applicable" in the EU about huge swathes of it because EU law trumps bullshit EULAs.

You are wrong on almost everything you just said.

Updates like this are perfectly legal since they do not fundamentally change the game and they are entirely optional. Companies are allowed to provide updates that change the game in minor ways such as this one even if it removes some stuff.

In a way you can legally sign away your right to a class action lawsuit. A company can legally put in a clause that requires you to go through arbitration at their expense before filing a lawsuit. Since they often use binding arbitration it means that legally you can not successfully sue them. You can still file a suit but if it ever went to court it would immediately be throw out and you would end up in a shit ton of trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Class action suits are treated very differently, while you can agree to not being able to bring one and it can stand as long as the agreement was considered valid (which it can easily be considered invalid) there is nothing to stop consumer rights organisations and the like bringing a case on the behalf of multiple plaintiffs as that cannot be signed away as its part of civil law.

 

[Irridium]

I'm wondering, would it be legal to download the game from a 'different source' and play that instead? I mean, isn't it legal to own a backup of a game you already own? Or are licensed to own? Anybody know?

Depends where you live, really. Some countries let you do this, some don't, and some are unclear. I doubt anyone will care all that much if you did buy the game though. Personally I feel if you bought the game and still own it you should be able to keep a backup of it and it shouldn't matter where you get it. After all, you did give them your money. But, laws aren't always so simple, so again, it depends where you live.

 

[Bat Vader]

The silver lining in this is that since San Andreas on the PC allows you to add music you can re-add them if you already own them. It is crap that they got taken away in the firs place. I don't care how long the license was supposed yo last you don't take something out of a game someone has paid for.

 

[Blue C Jeffrey]

They got rid of "Running Down A Dream" and "Killing In The Name."
They removed some resolution options (such as 1920X1080).
They caused game saves to become corrupted (players are booted into New Game).
They enabled "Steering with Mouse" by default.

They done fucked it up.

 

[Savagezion]

Ah, this is where that whole issue of ownership of digital games comes into play. If you actually own the game id think it illegal but I'm under the impression that with digital games you are actually buying a licence to play the game, so Rockstar has been forced to change the terms of the licence.

Also don't get too mad at Rockstar, they'd have no logical reason to do this but for the music rights owners being dicks.

You are factually incorrect, Rockstar could have bought a longer license but they didn't because it would have cost more money. This is the inevitable outcome of Rockstars decision. Rockstar had the choice and they decided not to buy a loner license cause/effect.

Not really, the reason why this even matters for consumers is ownership. My copy of GTA:SA on Xbox is untouched. Steam uses DRM which essentially takes ownership from paying customers and ironically allows more ownership over pirated copies. Steam practically forces you to remove them. (Unless you are paranoid and don't allow Steam to automatically update all your games)

I don't understand why some people argue in favor of digital distribution removing ownership. I understand that technically, this is legal, but what Fieldy is saying is "the law sucks and screws consumers". And he is right. But if we are gonna look at this like a bunch of greedy lawyers, yeah, it's legal. If we are to look at it as consumers, its bullshit bait and switch tactics.

 

[Zontar]

Ah, this is where that whole issue of ownership of digital games comes into play. If you actually own the game id think it illegal but I'm under the impression that with digital games you are actually buying a licence to play the game, so Rockstar has been forced to change the terms of the licence.

Also don't get too mad at Rockstar, they'd have no logical reason to do this but for the music rights owners being dicks.

You are factually incorrect, Rockstar could have bought a longer license but they didn't because it would have cost more money. This is the inevitable outcome of Rockstars decision. Rockstar had the choice and they decided not to buy a loner license cause/effect.

Not really, the reason why this even matters for consumers is ownership. My copy of GTA:SA on Xbox is untouched. Steam uses DRM which essentially takes ownership from paying customers and ironically allows more ownership over pirated copies. Steam practically forces you to remove them. (Unless you are paranoid and don't allow Steam to automatically update all your games)

I don't understand why some people argue in favor of digital distribution removing ownership. I understand that technically, this is legal, but what Fieldy is saying is "the law sucks and screws consumers". And he is right. But if we are gonna look at this like a bunch of greedy lawyers, yeah, it's legal. If we are to look at it as consumers, its bullshit bait and switch tactics.

Well it seems some German users are claiming they'll be filing legal action, since it apparently is illegal in Germany (and given how Origin is technically illegal there I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

And this is why I buy from gog when possible.

This. Right here.

Whenever I get a game on Steam, the first thing I do is check to see if they have it at GOG. If so, I get a Steam Code thingy instead and unlock it at GOG.

I did it with the Witcher 2 and not only did I get a DRM free version, but also a free soundtrack. ^^

And, more importantly, I was able to download both to my harddrive fully and backup the files on my portable harddrive.

 

[Savagezion]

Ah, this is where that whole issue of ownership of digital games comes into play. If you actually own the game id think it illegal but I'm under the impression that with digital games you are actually buying a licence to play the game, so Rockstar has been forced to change the terms of the licence.

Also don't get too mad at Rockstar, they'd have no logical reason to do this but for the music rights owners being dicks.

You are factually incorrect, Rockstar could have bought a longer license but they didn't because it would have cost more money. This is the inevitable outcome of Rockstars decision. Rockstar had the choice and they decided not to buy a loner license cause/effect.

Not really, the reason why this even matters for consumers is ownership. My copy of GTA:SA on Xbox is untouched. Steam uses DRM which essentially takes ownership from paying customers and ironically allows more ownership over pirated copies. Steam practically forces you to remove them. (Unless you are paranoid and don't allow Steam to automatically update all your games)

I don't understand why some people argue in favor of digital distribution removing ownership. I understand that technically, this is legal, but what Fieldy is saying is "the law sucks and screws consumers". And he is right. But if we are gonna look at this like a bunch of greedy lawyers, yeah, it's legal. If we are to look at it as consumers, its bullshit bait and switch tactics.

Well it seems some German users are claiming they'll be filing legal action, since it apparently is illegal in Germany (and given how Origin is technically illegal there I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was).

Yeah, that's because the European Union is wise to bullshit capitalist scams pulled on consumers in the US. They have recently been doing cool shit for consumers over there. US consumers are lap dogs to major corporations for some reason. It surely has more legal ramifications in many European countries is my guess because their laws are actually trying to keep corporations in check while the US lets them run free in the name of capitalism. The more money you have in the US, the more laws don't apply to you and the more you can influence them to boot. I know Europe has actually passed some laws against the BS practices software manufacturers have been pulling lately against consumers by trying to dodge laws.

This stuff gets me. People come here and watch Jimquisition and get all irate when companies do dodgy shit, but if you complain about it, here comes a line of defenders standing up for the 'little guy'. (read: big corporation) People actually defended EA and Sim Shitty. Rockstar pulls this, which I don't even own on steam, and people rush to defend it. I like Rockstar. I have over 100 games on Steam and will get more. I don't hate Steam, and I don't love it. My feelings about the parties aside, as a consumer, this is horseshit. If you think this is ok, then you don't believe that a deal is a deal. You believe all deals are negotiable after money has changed hands.

 

[smithy_2045]

Wait, so apparently Valve/Rockstar should just say fuck you to the music licensing agreements because reasons?

 

[Savagezion]

Wait, so apparently Valve/Rockstar should just say fuck you to the music licensing agreements because reasons?

Say you buy a copy of San Andreas for your console. Then you either lose that copy or it gets broken. If it was a service, they should provide you a new one, if it is a product, you have to go buy another one as after the point of sale you become responsible for it. It is now yours so you are liable for it. However, since you don't own the game but rather a license to play the game, they should be responsible for making sure you have access to the service you paid for by giving you a new copy. You can bet your ass, that they aren't going to do that though. SO they are saying in that case it is a product because supporting that loses them money.

However, in terms of digital distribution they claim service because there is no way to lose money. (Looks good on paper anyways) They allow you to download a game however many times you need to based on your account purchases. SO it is easier to claim service and take ownership away from paying consumers. IN reality, all games need to be ruled on as products because that is what they are. They advertise features, they have sequels you must purchase, playing on a seperate platform requires a seperate purchase of the same "service". Games are products. You have some that require subscriptions in which a service comes in to play but I wish people would quit acting like games are a service when they are clearly a product. As a product, the music licensing should never have been for a limited time OR it should have been clearly labeled that those songs would be removed in 2014. They did not. Legally, Dark Souls could reprogram their game to be Atari's E.T. tomorrow and that would be "ok" by anyone who disagrees with this. They are changing their product after the point of sale.

Honestly, this contract should have never been signed though. That's the real problem. No it would be stupid for Rockstar to say fuck off to the music industry. They should have said that back in 2004. Now its just a shitty deal to anyone who got screwed by this. Ultimately legistlators and the music industry are the bad guys here. Rockstar was stupid for signing it. Valve is kinda there.

 

[Rozalia1]

... ... ... Yes.

That is really all there is to it. I've read this removal also affected the mobile version...but I've not read any mention of the downloadable console version... so what is the story there. Is is also patched out, does nobody care, or is there some wrinkle that has prevented it?

Edit: Seems it could be that they are in essence forced to patch the songs out if they give the game a patch (this patch was more than removing the songs), so with the console "classics" version likely not getting a patch ever again it means they don't have to patch the songs out... but if that is it...than why patch such an old game knowing you'll be forced to do an unpopular thing like that...odd. Maybe they thought adding in controller support was worth it...who knows.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows any specifics on this.

 

[Cryselle]

Not really, the reason why this even matters for consumers is ownership. My copy of GTA:SA on Xbox is untouched. Steam uses DRM which essentially takes ownership from paying customers and ironically allows more ownership over pirated copies. Steam practically forces you to remove them. (Unless you are paranoid and don't allow Steam to automatically update all your games)

I don't understand why some people argue in favor of digital distribution removing ownership. I understand that technically, this is legal, but what Fieldy is saying is "the law sucks and screws consumers". And he is right. But if we are gonna look at this like a bunch of greedy lawyers, yeah, it's legal. If we are to look at it as consumers, its bullshit bait and switch tactics.

The problem is that you have never really owned a copy of a game. From the get-go, what you have been purchasing was a license to play the game. If you actually owned the game, it would then be legal for you to decompile and edit the game, which it is not. The only difference that digital distribution has made is that it is now much more feasible for companies to enforce these laws. Which, to be fair, they are NOT for the most part. Rockstar didn't want to take the songs away, they know full well how bad it looks for them and how upset people are. The RIAA, however, now has the ability to wave it's dick around and have Rockstar take the public fall for it. They don't have anything to lose, so they're engaging in the same anti-consumer bullshittery that they've been engaging in for the past decade. That's what is going on here.

By all rights be angry over this, just try and be angry at the correct group of people.

 

[Cryselle]

Double-post

 

[Albino Boo]

Ah, this is where that whole issue of ownership of digital games comes into play. If you actually own the game id think it illegal but I'm under the impression that with digital games you are actually buying a licence to play the game, so Rockstar has been forced to change the terms of the licence.

Also don't get too mad at Rockstar, they'd have no logical reason to do this but for the music rights owners being dicks.

You are factually incorrect, Rockstar could have bought a longer license but they didn't because it would have cost more money. This is the inevitable outcome of Rockstars decision. Rockstar had the choice and they decided not to buy a loner license cause/effect.

Not really, the reason why this even matters for consumers is ownership. My copy of GTA:SA on Xbox is untouched. Steam uses DRM which essentially takes ownership from paying customers and ironically allows more ownership over pirated copies. Steam practically forces you to remove them. (Unless you are paranoid and don't allow Steam to automatically update all your games)

I don't understand why some people argue in favor of digital distribution removing ownership. I understand that technically, this is legal, but what Fieldy is saying is "the law sucks and screws consumers". And he is right. But if we are gonna look at this like a bunch of greedy lawyers, yeah, it's legal. If we are to look at it as consumers, its bullshit bait and switch tactics.

You need to understand YOU DON'T OWN IT. All software has always been a licensed, it doesn't matter if its a cd, a floppy or even a tape you don't own it and never have done. You have the right to use it but thats it. Rockstar don't own the music they licensed the right to distribute the music for length of time, because steamworks cannot distinguish between when copies were bought Rockstar had two choices, stop selling the game or patch out the music. Rockstar has no power to force a third party to spend money to change their perfectly legal system to accommodate Rockstar's business decision.

In short you don't own the music and never have done, Rockstar doesn't own the music and never has done. It Rockstar's choice to license the music for limited period of time in full knowledge of steamworks technical capabilities. Stop listening to internet lawyers, they will always be beaten by the people with legal degrees who charge huge amount per hour.

 

[Albino Boo]

Not really, the reason why this even matters for consumers is ownership. My copy of GTA:SA on Xbox is untouched. Steam uses DRM which essentially takes ownership from paying customers and ironically allows more ownership over pirated copies. Steam practically forces you to remove them. (Unless you are paranoid and don't allow Steam to automatically update all your games)

I don't understand why some people argue in favor of digital distribution removing ownership. I understand that technically, this is legal, but what Fieldy is saying is "the law sucks and screws consumers". And he is right. But if we are gonna look at this like a bunch of greedy lawyers, yeah, it's legal. If we are to look at it as consumers, its bullshit bait and switch tactics.

The problem is that you have never really owned a copy of a game. From the get-go, what you have been purchasing was a license to play the game. If you actually owned the game, it would then be legal for you to decompile and edit the game, which it is not. The only difference that digital distribution has made is that it is now much more feasible for companies to enforce these laws. Which, to be fair, they are NOT for the most part. Rockstar didn't want to take the songs away, they know full well how bad it looks for them and how upset people are. The RIAA, however, now has the ability to wave it's dick around and have Rockstar take the public fall for it. They don't have anything to lose, so they're engaging in the same anti-consumer bullshittery that they've been engaging in for the past decade. That's what is going on here.

By all rights be angry over this, just try and be angry at the correct group of people.

Rockstar made the business decision to license the music for a short period of time. They could have bought a longer license or renewed the license but they chose not on financial grounds. Its purely down to the choices that Rockstar made and no one else

 

[Savagezion]

The problem is that you have never really owned a copy of a game. From the get-go, what you have been purchasing was a license to play the game. If you actually owned the game, it would then be legal for you to decompile and edit the game, which it is not. The only difference that digital distribution has made is that it is now much more feasible for companies to enforce these laws. Which, to be fair, they are NOT for the most part. Rockstar didn't want to take the songs away, they know full well how bad it looks for them and how upset people are. The RIAA, however, now has the ability to wave it's dick around and have Rockstar take the public fall for it. They don't have anything to lose, so they're engaging in the same anti-consumer bullshittery that they've been engaging in for the past decade. That's what is going on here.

By all rights be angry over this, just try and be angry at the correct group of people.

Just as a heads up, I am already there.

Honestly, this contract should have never been signed though. That's the real problem. No it would be stupid for Rockstar to say fuck off to the music industry. They should have said that back in 2004. Now its just a shitty deal to anyone who got screwed by this. Ultimately legistlators and the music industry are the bad guys here. Rockstar was stupid for signing it. Valve is kinda there.

You need to understand YOU DON'T OWN IT. All software has always been a licensed, it doesn't matter if its a cd, a floppy or even a tape you don't own it and never have done. You have the right to use it but thats it. Rockstar don't own the music they licensed the right to distribute the music for length of time, because steamworks cannot distinguish between when copies were bought Rockstar had two choices, stop selling the game or patch out the music. Rockstar has no power to force a third party to spend money to change their perfectly legal system to accommodate Rockstar's business decision.

In short you don't own the music and never have done, Rockstar doesn't own the music and never has done. It Rockstar's choice to license the music for limited period of time in full knowledge of steamworks technical capabilities. Stop listening to internet lawyers, they will always be beaten by the people with legal degrees who charge huge amount per hour.

Look, I understand the law. But the law is fucking stupid. That's what many people aren't getting. Just because it is a law doesn't mean its fair or the right way. That is what I am saying. I own my Silverado. I can dismantle it to every bolt if I want to. I own games that they released the source code to so that you can in fact decompile it down to every 'bolt'. It's called heavy modding support with the SDK. Games do this because it in no way endangers their copyright. Just because I can decompile something doesn't give me the right to redistribute it.

Games are marketed as a product but they hide behind service laws. If games are a service, or license to play, why do I have to buy the DLC? Shouldn't that be part of the license of service? What service are they providing me? That is like Chevy telling me I am buying the license to drive my truck when I buy the truck, which I am not. And it IS like that. Suddenly you see the movie industry and book industries trying to pull this shit because they see software getting away with it. Only difference is, software companies have laws they have lobbied and paid for. So the movie industry and book industry is trying like mad to change their distribution methods to get in on that act of zero accountability after a sale. Legally, in America, yes. I know I don't own my games. But that doesn't mean I am gonna support bullshit like that. Consumers having ownership over games they buy is not a threat to the industry. However, not allowing it offers software developers/publishers the ability to profiteer, as well as legally pull a bait and switch - which is illegal under normal consumer laws. It's shady as fuck. Do they have technicality on their side under the law, yes. Does that make it right? Hell no.

 

[Albino Boo]

Look, I understand the law. But the law is fucking stupid. That's what many people aren't getting. Just because it is a law doesn't mean its fair or the right way. That is what I am saying. I own my Silverado. I can dismantle it to every bolt if I want to. I own games that they released the source code to so that you can in fact decompile it down to every 'bolt'. It's called heavy modding support with the SDK. Games do this because it in no way endangers their copyright. Just because I can decompile something doesn't give me the right to redistribute it.

Games are marketed as a product but they hide behind service laws. If games are a service, or license to play, why do I have to buy the DLC? Shouldn't that be part of the license of service? What service are they providing me? That is like Chevy telling me I am buying the license to drive my truck when I buy the truck, which I am not. And it IS like that. Suddenly you see the movie industry and book industries trying to pull this shit because they see software getting away with it. Only difference is, software companies have laws they have lobbied and paid for. So the movie industry and book industry is trying like mad to change their distribution methods to get in on that act of zero accountability after a sale. Legally, in America, yes. I know I don't own my games. But that doesn't mean I am gonna support bullshit like that. Consumers having ownership over games they buy is not a threat to the industry. However, not allowing it offers software developers/publishers the ability to profiteer, as well as legally pull a bait and switch - which is illegal under normal consumer laws. It's shady as fuck. Do they have technicality on their side under the law, yes. Does that make it right? Hell no.

If gamers ever want to be taken seriously they will start having to live in the real world. Games are not different from anything else, books, music has operated under the same laws for the last 150 years. If you bothered reading what I wrote you would have seen the real world issues technical that sits behind the decision, swearing and shouting and ranting will not change that fact. Rockstar made a decision based on money, as is their right, and that has consequences. You cannot force Rockstar to make a financial loss on game by renewing a license that will eat into the small margin on the sale price. Rockstar cannot sell something that they have no right to sell. Rockstar cannot force Valve to rewrite steamworks because of their business decision. They only have two options, stop selling the game or patch it out on steam. Rockstar are a business and they will be looking to maximise the return on the 50 million+ investment so in the real world away they are just going to patch it out and carry on selling. Any other option will require the expenditure of money on 10 year old game, which they are simply not going to do.

 

[Savagezion]

Look, I understand the law. But the law is fucking stupid. That's what many people aren't getting. Just because it is a law doesn't mean its fair or the right way. That is what I am saying. I own my Silverado. I can dismantle it to every bolt if I want to. I own games that they released the source code to so that you can in fact decompile it down to every 'bolt'. It's called heavy modding support with the SDK. Games do this because it in no way endangers their copyright. Just because I can decompile something doesn't give me the right to redistribute it.

Games are marketed as a product but they hide behind service laws. If games are a service, or license to play, why do I have to buy the DLC? Shouldn't that be part of the license of service? What service are they providing me? That is like Chevy telling me I am buying the license to drive my truck when I buy the truck, which I am not. And it IS like that. Suddenly you see the movie industry and book industries trying to pull this shit because they see software getting away with it. Only difference is, software companies have laws they have lobbied and paid for. So the movie industry and book industry is trying like mad to change their distribution methods to get in on that act of zero accountability after a sale. Legally, in America, yes. I know I don't own my games. But that doesn't mean I am gonna support bullshit like that. Consumers having ownership over games they buy is not a threat to the industry. However, not allowing it offers software developers/publishers the ability to profiteer, as well as legally pull a bait and switch - which is illegal under normal consumer laws. It's shady as fuck. Do they have technicality on their side under the law, yes. Does that make it right? Hell no.

If gamers ever want to be taken seriously they will start having to live in the real world. Games are not different from anything else, books, music has operated under the same laws for the last 150 years. If you bothered reading what I wrote you would have seen the real world issues technical that sits behind the decision, swearing and shouting and ranting will not change that fact. Rockstar made a decision based on money, as is their right, and that has consequences. You cannot force Rockstar to make a financial loss on game by renewing a license that will eat into the small margin on the sale price. Rockstar cannot sell something that they have no right to sell. Rockstar cannot force Valve to rewrite steamworks because of their business decision. They only have two options, stop selling the game or patch it out on steam. Rockstar are a business and they will be looking to maximise the return on the 50 million+ investment so in the real world away they are just going to patch it out and carry on selling. Any other option will require the expenditure of money on 10 year old game, which they are simply not going to do.

I do live in the real world. When you buy a book, you own it. When you buy a movie, you own it. The fact you can be so easily misdirected by a few naughty words says more about you than the man who uses them. When did I say Rockstar is to blame at all in this thread? I said Rockstar would be stupid to break contract and leave the music in and try and go back on their deal. I have been saying it was stupid for them to sign it back in 2004 because they are selling a product. Like it or not, the market treats games as a product, the law treats it as a service.

I have not once argued that Rockstar should renew. So I don't know what part of the "real world" you are in.

 

[Albino Boo]

Look, I understand the law. But the law is fucking stupid. That's what many people aren't getting. Just because it is a law doesn't mean its fair or the right way. That is what I am saying. I own my Silverado. I can dismantle it to every bolt if I want to. I own games that they released the source code to so that you can in fact decompile it down to every 'bolt'. It's called heavy modding support with the SDK. Games do this because it in no way endangers their copyright. Just because I can decompile something doesn't give me the right to redistribute it.

Games are marketed as a product but they hide behind service laws. If games are a service, or license to play, why do I have to buy the DLC? Shouldn't that be part of the license of service? What service are they providing me? That is like Chevy telling me I am buying the license to drive my truck when I buy the truck, which I am not. And it IS like that. Suddenly you see the movie industry and book industries trying to pull this shit because they see software getting away with it. Only difference is, software companies have laws they have lobbied and paid for. So the movie industry and book industry is trying like mad to change their distribution methods to get in on that act of zero accountability after a sale. Legally, in America, yes. I know I don't own my games. But that doesn't mean I am gonna support bullshit like that. Consumers having ownership over games they buy is not a threat to the industry. However, not allowing it offers software developers/publishers the ability to profiteer, as well as legally pull a bait and switch - which is illegal under normal consumer laws. It's shady as fuck. Do they have technicality on their side under the law, yes. Does that make it right? Hell no.

If gamers ever want to be taken seriously they will start having to live in the real world. Games are not different from anything else, books, music has operated under the same laws for the last 150 years. If you bothered reading what I wrote you would have seen the real world issues technical that sits behind the decision, swearing and shouting and ranting will not change that fact. Rockstar made a decision based on money, as is their right, and that has consequences. You cannot force Rockstar to make a financial loss on game by renewing a license that will eat into the small margin on the sale price. Rockstar cannot sell something that they have no right to sell. Rockstar cannot force Valve to rewrite steamworks because of their business decision. They only have two options, stop selling the game or patch it out on steam. Rockstar are a business and they will be looking to maximise the return on the 50 million+ investment so in the real world away they are just going to patch it out and carry on selling. Any other option will require the expenditure of money on 10 year old game, which they are simply not going to do.

I do live in the real world. When you buy a book, you own it. When you buy a movie, you own it. The fact you can be so easily misdirected by a few naughty words says more about you than the man who uses them. When did I say Rockstar is to blame at all in this thread? I said Rockstar would be stupid to break contract and leave the music in and try and go back on their deal. I have been saying it was stupid for them to sign it back in 2004 because they are selling a product. Like it or not, the market treats games as a product, the law treats it as a service.

I have not once argued that Rockstar should renew. So I don't know what part of the "real world" you are in.

No you don't own a book. You own it subject to conditions, just the same way as a game

"All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Hey why bother with facts WHEN YOU CAN GET ANGRY.