What does it even mean to “own” a video game?

[Shadow1980]

Mnementh said:

Shadow1980 said:

That's an issue of property rights, and therefore it's a question for the law to answer. And I'm going to go over that in depth here, so there won't be a short version. Also, since I'm an American, I will be focusing on U.S. law. The laws will obviously differ in other nations.

I won't (and can't) argue with your post. But I just want to point out, that laws are an artificial thing humans created. They are not natural. They can be shaped in any form we want.

There was a time no copyright laws existed, then it was willed into existance. In theory we could change laws. In practice big companies profit from the way things are (otherwise they wouldn't have grown big in the first place) and so they use their power to keep things as they are or even escalate them in their favor. It is hard for consumers to fight against that. That money interests can shape the laws is only possible, because the law is actually artificial, man-made. No company can change the realities of the natural sciences. But they can influence the change of created things, like laws.

So for me the question how law currently is, is not unimportant (after all i have to follow laws), but I think the more interesting question is: how should the laws be shaped in an ideal world?

To answer that question at the end: "In a way that favors workers and customers."

Under capitalism, the deck will be stacked in favor of the capitalist class. Again, ownership is power, and nowhere is that more consequential than the means of production being owned by large for-profit corporations. A person I'm familiar with once said "Every single regulation libertarians oppose exists because someone abused their freedom when the regulation didn’t exist." You get laws regulating pollution because rivers caught fire or drinking water was poisoned. And you get laws protecting customers because crooked businessmen screwed over their customers. "Let the buyer beware" was not sufficient legal grounds to sell dangerous or defective products or defraud the customer.

And in the world of video games, there ought to be rules favoring the people who actually buy the games. There have been plenty of businesses throughout history that have actually done their due diligence and were profitable without having to screw over their workers or customers. If big video game publishers don't want government getting involved in their business, then they ought to do a better job instead of doing bullshit like shutting down games or pushing aggressive monetization schemes that border on gambling.