Victim blaming at its finest.

She. But yes, probably.

I dunno. After Vivian, he probably decided to spend some serious money making sure the rest come out as fucked up as he his

We have no idea who many women have agreed to become his breeding stock. It might be enough to cost him some real money.

Don’t forget human shields.

What ICE is doing on the regular right now is worse than George Floyd or Kent State.

Kill yourself.

Not a prison, a death camp.

What if I told you it won’t be very many years, and it’ll also be the rest of your life?

No need to worry about that. Daddy Trump will just tell us who the criminals are!

People who are ill deserve compassion. Nazis deserve a mass grave.

It is not. Not until 2028, and that’s if we still have real elections by then, which is looking increasingly unlikely.

I feel like pretty soon he’ll announce a tariff of infinity plus one.

The Salvadoran death camp.

The Onion is too busy reporting on his crimes against humanity to focus on his warmongering right now.

“Worse”

They won’t “do away with it” in any official way, but they’ve already stopped obeying it.

My point is they never have and never will.

I think Ubisoft is clearly in the wrong, but you’re not making a good case. You’re conflating very different meanings of the word “own”.

In terms of legal ownership, only the copyright holder owns the intellectual property, including the right to distribute and license it. When a consumer “buys” a piece of media, they’re really just buying a perpetual license for their personal use of it. With physical media, the license is typically tied to whatever physical object (disc, book, ROM, etc.) is used to deliver the content, and you can transfer your license by transferring the physical media, but the license is still the important part that separates legal use from piracy.

When you pirate something, you own the means to access it without the legal right to do so. So, in the case at hand, players still “own” the game in the same sense they would if they had pirated it. Ubisoft hasn’t revoked anyone’s physical access to the bits that comprise the game; what they’ve done is made that kind of access useless because the game relies on a service that Ubisoft used to operate.

The real issue here is that Ubisoft didn’t make it clear what they were selling, and they may even have deliberately misrepresented it. Consumers were either not aware that playing the game required Ubisoft to operate servers for it, or they were misled regarding how long Ubisoft would operate the servers.

Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty, i.e. a promise that what they buy will continue to work for some period of time after they’ve bought it, and an obligation from the manufacturer to provide whatever services are necessary to keep that promise. Game publishers generally don’t offer any kind of warranty, and consumers don’t demand warranties, but consumers also tend to expect punishers to act as if their products come with a warranty. Publishers, of course, don’t want to draw attention to their lack of warranty, and will sometimes actively exploit that false perception that their products come with a perpetual warranty.

I think what’s really needed is a very clear indication, at the point of purchase, of whether a game requires ongoing support from the publisher to be playable, along with a legally binding statement of how long they’ll provide support. And there should be a default warranty if none is clearly specified, like say 10 years from the point of purchase.

Or, ownership itself is a service. Rights mean nothing if nobody enforces them, and that includes property rights.