@jwenting He wasn't being as pedantic. Games were often not released with source code, but they were certainly released with artwork (just not the copyright or license to redistribute further) and included the binaries to host your own server (as part of the main executable usually), traditionally on your LAN, but also over the Internet in many cases. E.g. Age of Empires, Starcraft (the original and Brood War expansion), CounterStrike, Warcraft and Warcraft II. A number of Blizzard games were among these. There was a fair amount of controversy when SCII was released and didn't support LAN.

@user1937198, that's jwentings point, you don't need the source code or the artwork to play the game, you just need the license to do so. That's the difference between owning the game and owning a license to use/play the game. And many pieces of software, including games, require purchasing a different license to locally host the server for the software. Again, that's the difference between licensing and outright ownership of software.

@ttbek, but that's still a license to use the software, not ownership of the game, which is jwenting's point. Also their point, the source code is not the same as the binaries or other compiled code used to run the software locally or on a server. When you buy software, it's for a license to use it not actual ownership of the software. If you were to actually buy the software, no one else could buy it or use it unless you sold it or, again, licensed others to use it. You could even release it as freeware, but that's still a license for others to use it.

@computercarguy Yes, and indefinite and practically irrevocable license to use that came on a physical disc in my physical possession. Just like when you buy a print of an artwork you don't get the copyright, but the artist has no right to come in your house and take away the print they sold you. Disney doesn't get to raid my basement for the VHS tape I bought ages ago, etc... So in a sense you were actually buying a copy of the binary, sure, not ownership of the intellectual property, but you did get to keep your copy and remotely disabling it would almost certainly not have flown.

@user1937198 Indeed, and I might need to look it up again, but I think in Germany for an EULA to be enforceable it needs to be presented prior to purchase (though I guess they have cleverly done that here by getting users to agree to the EULA when they get Battle.net before they "purchase" the license for a game through Battle.net).

@ttbek, actually, Disney could possibly raid your house for the VHS, if they found you violating the license by making copies of the tape. Also, that wasn't a "binary" in the same sense as it means today, by even AV definitions. You might be able resell the original license, meaning you can't use the software anymore, but it doesn't mean you can duplicate the license for others.

@ttbek, also, artists can revoke a license to use artwork, especially when the licensee is using it for monetary gains. You are helping to prove that a copyright and license aren't the same thing. plagiarismtoday.com/2019/09/05/copyright-and-commissioned-ar‌​t

@barbecue, it is relevant to the extent that Disney has that option, even if it is more difficult to do. Also, Disney has a history of "making tapes disappear" by refusing to sell their movies, by putting it in their "vault" and only making the movies available for legal distributor sale during specific times/dates. This license to watch a movie can also be seen with online UltraViolet codes that only work for specific times/dates. You own only a license, not the work itself, as this answer by Jen states.

@Joshua, what "community" are you referring to? Is that "community" going to pay tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of dollars/euro/whatever for the physical servers that likely also host other games? Is that "community" going to pay hundreds of thousands for the IT staff to keep them running and housed? Again, a license was purchased, not the actual game or the physical servers.

@computercarguy I'm aware of the distinction, "It is interesting to note that the Adobe court's holding is consistent with European Union directives and decisions. Under European Union law, a lump-sum license to use software for an indefinite period of time is deemed to be a sale of goods, in which case the software vendors' restrictions on transfer of physical copies of that software will not be enforced." wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/…

@computercarguy Disney does NOT have that option. They could prevent public use or commercial use, but they cannot prevent private use of sold VHS tapes in that manner even you invited them to take a look around. It would be property theft of a physical sold good. Edit: and the same for artists generally. As far as I'm aware... or is there a case you would like to cite where an artist reclaimed a sold print from private use?

@ttbek, yes they can, by providing proof to a court that a copyright violation was made and 503(b) of Copyright laws says "..., the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights...", which could even include a server or PC that has the digital reproduction meant for redistribution, along with the "master" VHS. copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html Copyright laws assume materials exist in physical forms.

@computercarguy No such copy or reproduction was made in this instance except by Disney themselves, whom sold that copy to me. And from the first sale principle... they cannot turn around and magically convert the sale to be only a temporary license of use. Other cases may be more complicated, here is some interesting reading for you: digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/… Do recall that VHS is analog, but some digital transactions do qualify as sales... it can be complicated. An intent to license doesn't always do that legally.

Sorry, I didn't catch all of this comment earlier, "actually, Disney could possibly raid your house for the VHS, if they found you violating the license by making copies of the tape. Also, that wasn't a "binary" in the same sense as it means today, by even AV definitions. You might be able resell the original license, meaning you can't use the software anymore, but it doesn't mean you can duplicate the license for others."

Didn't catch that we were talking about a context that included copyright violation.

@ttbek, you said that Disney couldn't raid you house to recover a VHS tape and I identified an instance where they could, using the court system. Do you have any recommendations as to what section of the 60 page document I should read? Posting that and implying I should just read the whole thing is not a legitimate citation for supporting a normal statement.

Wait... so you're saying that they could raid for a legally purchased VHS tape that is not in copyright violation? How do you get that interpretation?

Just as you changed the original situation to include physical media, I changed it yet again to include a copyright infringement.

I stated already now that I had missed that when I answered, in that scenario they could. I had not been under the impression that that was the scenario under discussion.

With the correct situation and a history of copyright infringement, Disney (with their high priced lawyers) could remove physical material from your house that could eventually be used to violate copyright. For instance, if you had copied Lion King, Little Mermaid, and others, but hadn't copied Cinderella, 101 Dalmatians, or other movies, they could potentially convince the court to remove those copies as well.

There are some exceptions though, e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Trying to raid your house simply for owning a VHS that Disney claims is no longer valid to own because they changed their license agreement likely wouldn't pass the court system, but that's also not the original argument made in the answer or the question.

And that act is sometimes interpreted a bit more broadly.

From skimming it, it applies almost exclusively between content creators and device makers. I don't see how that applies to the OPs question about a company no longer providing a service, how it applies to individual ownership of media, or even low production illegal copying of copyrighted materials.

Come on, you're not even trying, it has it's own heading, "Exemption from infringement actions"

"In regard to home taping, the provision broadly permits noncommercial, private recording to analog devices and media. However, it fails to resolve the home taping debate "conclusively," as it only permits noncommercial, private recording to digital devices and media when certain technology is used." This shows that it really only applies to media manufacturers being required to include tech to prevent copying, not the consumer from doing the copying.

No, it applies to the consumer doing the copying when they use that equipment to do so.

It doesn't resolve the question conclusively because it is narrow (only with those devices, not with any device).

As soon as a consumer makes a copy to sell or even give away, it becomes a commercial act and copyright infringement exists. Legally, a consumer is allowed to make a copy of a movie or audio recording for their own use/backup. That doesn't break copyright fair use, but making copies on any device to redistribute does.

Exactly

Why do you seem to think I'm trying to argue for Napster or something?

Oh, sorry, I misread what you said.

That is incorrect.

Anyway, those 60 pages are a good read, it was fun reading them today, very informative. I'm calling it a night, have a good day.