Correct. You don't "own" a recipe, you CREATE a recipe that can be shared by others for them to use/pass on/modify.
Creation is very overrated in these discussions. If you come up with (create) a recipe and, by sheer coincidence, somebody two weeks in the future on some other continent also comes up with (creates) an identical recipe, it has absolutely zero influence on the "ownership" of the recipe, because there is none. Or maybe you are erroneous in your claim that you created it because you were not aware that the same recipe has already been documented in some 200-year-old cookbook that you simply didn't know of. In any case, even if God almighty informed you about the recipe in a dream, nothing would actually change about the "ownership".
No. Buying a video game from a digital storefront is ONE METHOD of obtaining/playing/owning that product. There's nothing wrong with the idea of buying a game from the Internet.
Ownership, again, is the exclusive right to control something. If you buy a computer (or the computer parts to build one), you have the exclusive right to control, for instance, what's in that computer's hard drive and memory. There is no such thing as exclusive right to control a software. You cannot say that, for instance, if I also obtain a copy of the software, your "exclusive right to control" that software means that I am forbidden from playing it. If you attempted to enforce such software "ownership", you would be violating my ownership of my computer and potentially also my hands that I use to operate it. Or my brain if it is such a simple video game that I can memorize the source code, or you imply that you have ownership of the mere concept and idea of the game.
There is nothing wrong with buying a game from the Internet if and only if it simply means you get transferred a copy. The breeding ground for issues begins where you go beyond that.
Ownership, in context, is the ability to use your purchased/borrowed video game on your hardware, no strings attached.
No, ownership is the exclusive right to control a thing. You use the ownership you have over your own body, incl. hands and fingers, and the ownership you have over your hardware, incl. storage and memory, to execute code that is currently there on hardware you own.
If we took this "the ability to use your purchased/borrowed video game on your hardware" to heart, then anything that breaks any of the included clauses would somehow change something about the "ownership, in context".
As games are becoming more reliant to online servers and authentication, that concept of "ownership" with your software is disappearing as access to that title could be altered/revoked at the publisher's will without recourse.
Sure, use a different definition of "ownership" and then your point is true.
My physical copy of Battleborn is currently a coaster as the game needs to authenticate with 2K's sunset servers. 2K offered NO recourse or solution to preserve their own sold software.
True, and my condolences go out to you.
However, it is your responsibility as a paying customer to ensure that you make wise purchases in expectation of such publisher decisions. And it is also your responsibility to abstain from purchasing goods and services as a result of the vendor having had scummy behavior in the past.
It is also the responsibility of publishers etc.pp. to not fuck over the customers so that they are more likely to have trust among them.
So, you're fine with video games being a mere license to have the publisher's permission to revoke access to the paid product without archival solution?
Personally, I am not fine with that. That is one of the reasons why I rarely play games that depend on some external server to function.
I exercise my right to free association and disassociation by simply abstaining from entering into such agreements, and I very much encourage others to do the same. The more people share this attitude, the fewer paying customers there are for such shitty publishers to profit from.
Ideally, more customer sovereignty would drive such shitty practices to extinction because they simply become unprofitable out of a lack of revenue from potentially paying customers.
How about the countless people involved in game development where their hard work, creativity and passion is potentially wiped away because it's all stored in some server?
Sucks for them, but they presumably agreed to contractual agreements with their employers (game studios) and those game studios presumably have contractual agreements with their employers (publishers).
I am very very very very VERY much against suddenly intervening into valid contracts just for some emotional reasons. Think back to my massage therapist example. Imagine if there are people who feel extremely strongly about massages and believe that it is a scummy practice that massage sessions have to be purchased individually and need to be scheduled.
The way I see it, agreements that are made without coercion and that are, in terms of their content, valid, are to be enforced as is.
EDIT here:
This very very much reminds me of people who whine in public that they purchased a thing, only for that thing to be sold for a lower price a day later.
Why the fuck would you complain? At the time you purchased it, you have demonstrated that you valued ownership of that thing higher than ownership of the money you spent on it. At the time you believed that such a purchase was a good decision, and because you believed it is a good decision, you made it.
Just because it got sold for a discount soon after you bought it changes nothing about the fact that, at the time you purchased it, you were convinced that it was a good decision to do so.
You know why some physical games balloon in price?
Because there are more people in a society who are willing to possess a copy. If the number of willing possessors of a thing increases and everything else remains the same, the equilibrium price of that thing increases. Very basic economic theory in action.
Because said copies are scarce due to them not being in print for various reasons.
Think about the logical implications to the arguments I am making. When I say that ownership of an idea is impossible and thus illegitimate, I mean it not just for the consumer, but also for the producer. Meaning that every human being must have the inalienable right to produce such copies as long as they do not unwantonly harm the physical integrity of the property of other people in doing so. Meaning that all IP law, copyright law, trademark law, is null and void and fake and gay. And if you want to produce cartridges which contain DRM-free game copies, I will fight to the death for your right to do so with your own property.
With today's technology, we have the potential to, once again, PRESERVE, our beloved medium if the gaming industry refuses to.
Exactly, and because I recognize "intellectual property rights" as illegitimate, any attempt to stop or hinder you from preserving your beloved media (assuming that you doing so does not physically harm the property of others) would be a violation of your rights, as you (presumably) use nothing but your own private property when you preserve or copy your video games. As far as I am concerned, you must have the right to shoot dead anybody who attempts to hinder you from preserving games without your consent.
