Look, if you going to take things to the absolute extremes like renting property and compare it to buying a video game, that's just silly.
Oh God you're one of those people who doesn't read or basically lacks reading comprehension skills. Give me a sec I'm going to buckle up for the next three posts as you struggle to figure out what has been said.
No one compared renting property to videogames. You said and I quote "If you pay for something it should be yours." You didn't say if I pay for a videogame it should be mine. You said if I pay for 'something.' A statement which I patently pointed out to be false and ridiculous. You don't automatically get ownership of something just for paying money.
If you're going to be charged upwards of $50 or $100 for a game you shouldn't need to deal with online DRM to use it.
Why? Because you don't want to?
I don't call the phone company to make a call
But you route calls through their substations. Which is why there was a big hullabaloo about recording/spying on calls by the US government. Because you are connecting to stations that the phone companies have set up and run and they can monitor through traffic in order to route calls correctly from place to place.
So when you make a phone call you sent it through a series of wires or bounce it off of a series of satellites run by the phone company that send your call to where you want it to go allowing you to use a phone.
When you play an always online DRM videogame you send data packets to a server run by whatever company is running it, and they send back an activation signal.
It's not exactly the same but it is pretty close and it completely invalidates your statement/comparison.
and I don't connect my TV to the internet to use it either.
You don't? I certainly do. Commercials are for plebes.
DRM servs the publishers not the consumers.
Publishers serve the consumers. That's what a business is. They make things that consumers want and we buy them. And without their capital we wouldn't have the games we do.
As for lively hoods, well if you're lively hood involves taking away the rights of others then I can't see see myself defending it.
What rights have been taken away? You're making things up that don't exist. Just because you want something to be real doesn't mean that it is.
There are no protections in the constitution guaranteeing you don't have to license a product to use it.
There are no protections in the amendments about such rights.
There are no such protections in the consumer protection laws.
The Supreme Court of the United States says you do not have any such right.
You're literally just imagining some right that does not exist and saying 'o my God the corperashuns is taking mai rigtes.' The same thing is happening to me bro. Corporations already are infringing on my right to wander around in their factories taking notes. It's like man isn't this a free country? Lyke why can't I walk anywhere I want? Capitalist pigs.
It's like saying "yeah he's a thief but that's his lively hood you know."
No it isn't. There is no comparison to be made. You have paid money for a license to use a product. They don't take that product away from you in pretty much any cases, because they are not assholes.
If you metaphor was to be even remotely accurate the thief would have to sell you a product then totally let you use it according to the agreement you made with him without infringing on your use of it. That doesn't sound like a thief at all. Probably because it isn't one.
Game publishers have been getting more and more desperate to ruin consumer rights (remember SOPA and PIPA) and I am no longer connived piracy has anything to do with it.
Yes and it got shot down so what is your point? Lets go through some of my own.
1) Game publishers are not congress. Congress submitted this law not the publishers.
2) Congress and the game publishers aren't the only people allowed to do anything. This is a system of checks and balances that push the country towards the middle point. Which is why it didn't pass.
3) If it did pass it is subject to judicial review which could very very easily have found against it for any myriad of reasons such as violation of the right to free speech(which is an actual right. Like from the constitution and everything. I didn't make it up like some people.)
I think it's more to do with killing the competition of self publishing.
And how would it do this?
Copyrighted unique material created by private developers with intent to distribute it through their own website can't be infringed on unless it was like a game about fucking children or something. And even then it would probably have to include pictures of actual children.
This kind of business practice leads to so many probables and you're not helping annoying by apologizing for it.
Again, with the not reading.
Apologizing would be "yeah man I know they steal your games and you are totally right but I'm sorry that they are doing that and they don't mean nothing by it."
This is not an apology. The last post was not an apology. And pointing out that you are wrong might be annoying to you; but I'm sorry, because you're wrong. Being correct in the future will probably make things less 'annoying' for you. Publishers aren't stealing your games; point me to one time when someone was locked out of their games without illegally using chargeback to steal from the developer/publisher. You're imagining rights that don't exist, that high courts around the world have said don't exist. Point me to the law that says you have whatever consumer rights you think you have.
Oh and pro tip bro, you should read GOGs ToS some time. Boy are you in for a disappointment.
Oh for crying out loud. What's annoying me is that you're taking any of this in. I don't care what GOG's terms of service are, I can keep my games from GOG I can't from Steam it's as simple as that.
As for the law that points out consumer rights, well I do happen to have a case for you. The case of iinet an Australian based ISP that was being sued by 7 Hollywood studios for allying it's users to access the pirate bay. In the USA ISP are forced to block such websites.
The supreme court ruled in favor of iinet unanimously stating that an ISP can not and will not be held accountable for the actions of their users. This was a victory for not only national business rights but also consumer rights. Another consumer right is your right to return and or get refunded over defective goods or goods there were purchased under false advertising. In other words if you by an xbox 360 and it red rings outside of warranty you still have the right to get a refund for it due to the manufacturing fault.
Granted you do have to jump though some hoops, but no matter what the warranty says if you buy some that breaks inside of 3 ears due to a manufacturing fault you are entitled to a refund that is your right here.