When you rent something and take it over, is it stealing?
Highlighting the problems with renting something (that it can be taken away) doesn’t change that. And to claim you’re free to steal anything you rent because it’s not really stealing doesn’t give any merit, it just makes you look like a bitch.
You can assume all closed source software is a rental because you have no idea when it will stop working. The idea that you can reverse engineer it while admirable isn’t realistic for 99% of the population, if it were then there wouldn’t be a reason to have it be closed source.
we get it: you don’t understand what the word “stealing” means, and making false accusations against me and slinging childish insults won’t distract from the fact that what you’re saying is nonsense, lol
If you want to get into a debate of copying vs stealing then go ahead but it has nothing to do with the line about “it’s not stealing if you were renting it”
you’re the one who wants to debate anything, and you’re the one who brought up “renting” anything’s when I never mentioned that. once again, demonstrating how you have no clue what you’re talking about - and, obviously, no clue what i’m talking about, lol
You’re renting it until Steam decides to revoke it. The article talks about these not being owning but you have to know going into it that you’re not buying the product, you’re buying a seat to use the product. That’s renting. You’re paying for access.
Steam changed that after people complained, rightfully and a lot. Also, them granting a “license” is part of the problem. There’s no reason for them to not sell you your own copy of the game other than to benefit shitty game devs.
It honestly never ceases to amaze me how eager some people are to get fucked over by corporations. Why are you even defending this?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
When you don’t pay for rent is it stealing?
When you rent something and take it over, is it stealing?
Highlighting the problems with renting something (that it can be taken away) doesn’t change that. And to claim you’re free to steal anything you rent because it’s not really stealing doesn’t give any merit, it just makes you look like a bitch.
You can assume all closed source software is a rental because you have no idea when it will stop working. The idea that you can reverse engineer it while admirable isn’t realistic for 99% of the population, if it were then there wouldn’t be a reason to have it be closed source.
we get it: you don’t understand what the word “stealing” means, and making false accusations against me and slinging childish insults won’t distract from the fact that what you’re saying is nonsense, lol
If you want to get into a debate of copying vs stealing then go ahead but it has nothing to do with the line about “it’s not stealing if you were renting it”
you’re the one who wants to debate anything, and you’re the one who brought up “renting” anything’s when I never mentioned that. once again, demonstrating how you have no clue what you’re talking about - and, obviously, no clue what i’m talking about, lol
troll on, troll…
Scroll up, we’re talking about a game on Steam. That’s a rental.
lmao, we get it. you don’t know what you’re talking about. you don’t need to keep trying to convince us.
Your example was paying rent and the quote is about buying. You do know that there’s a difference, right?
If you read the TOS then you’d see you’re renting the game. Steam can revoke your access.
Hence how it’s not owned, you’re paying for a period of use.
It says purchase.
“grants a license” not “grants ownership”
You’re renting it until Steam decides to revoke it. The article talks about these not being owning but you have to know going into it that you’re not buying the product, you’re buying a seat to use the product. That’s renting. You’re paying for access.
Steam changed that after people complained, rightfully and a lot. Also, them granting a “license” is part of the problem. There’s no reason for them to not sell you your own copy of the game other than to benefit shitty game devs.
It honestly never ceases to amaze me how eager some people are to get fucked over by corporations. Why are you even defending this?
everything steam did for consumer protection is less about “people complained” and more about “EU courts don’t fuck with that shit”.
Steam store pages were misleading for well over a decade. EU courts didn’t give a shit for a long time
that’s irrelevant. they point is change came when scrutiny began.
Defending what?
Shitty business practices that actively fuck over consumers.
Where have I defended that?