You mention bards adding their own twists. That actually proves my point. The audience didn’t “own” the bard’s unique performance or get to take it home; they just experienced the bard’s specific intellectual labor for the evening. A video game or software platform isn’t a public myth; it’s a highly specific, unique execution of labor.
Furthermore, you’re right that books and paintings have been sold for centuries, but those are static objects. When a painting is sold, the artist’s work is done. Modern digital ecosystems are living things that require active servers, database management, and ongoing engineering. If you demand perpetual ownership for a single $60 payment, who is morally obligated to provide the uncompensated labor to keep those servers running for the next twenty years?
Maybe stop treating private server owners like criminals, and get back to releasing server binaries like we used to?
The original developers of these games aren’t the only ones capable of hosting them.
I cut my teeth hosting by hosting game servers for me and my friends, and now work in the tech industry using those skills to pay rent.
Developers who gatekeep server binaries aren’t just doing a disservice to players, but to the future generation of IT workers, and those who will depend on them.
Furthermore, for many games, these are tacked on features to an already competent single player that doesn’t need online support.
This argument falls apart for anything that isn’t live service, which is basically everything I play…
You are conflating predatory always online DRM with actual live-service architecture. You are entirely right that tacking forced online requirements onto a single-player game is a terrible product choice, but it doesn’t change the underlying reality of ownership.
If a classical painter decides to hang their masterpiece in a pitch-black room, or a sculptor insists their work only be viewed through frosted glass, it makes for a miserable audience experience. But it is undeniably their right to do so. The creator always dictates the terms of engagement. Even if you are playing a completely offline game, you still do not own the code. You only bought a license to execute it. Feel free to go look at the EULA from ANY video game you’ve EVER purchased; you never owned the game, only a license.
Furthermore, demanding that developers just release server binaries treats backend architecture as if it is public property. Backend infrastructure is full of proprietary code, licensed third-party middleware, and security architecture that a studio cannot legally or safely hand over to the public. When a developer chooses to release server tools, that is a generous decision they made regarding their own intellectual labor. You do not have a moral or legal right to demand the keys to a developer’s proprietary backend just because you want to host it yourself. Whether it is a live-service giant or an offline indie game, the creator still gets to choose how their work is distributed.
Anyone who puts their own art on a pedastol deserves the anguish that comes from people enjoying it the “wrong” way.
I say this as someone who’s been making games since their early teens.
Furthermore, as much as they are the norm in gaming, proprietary software licenses where a fucking mistake, and I’d staple my ballsack to the ceiling before I’d license any code I care about with one.
Like fuck Richard Stallman for being a creep, but everything that man has ever said about copyright is completely accurate.
Even if that means not getting cutting edge toolkits.
You claim that creators shouldn’t put their work on a pedestal, yet you are putting your own ideological purity on a massive pedestal. If you are truly running a Stallman-approved, 100% proprietary-free operation, the reality of your published games is going to be incredibly restricted.
Let’s take a look at the EULA and dependency chain of these games you’ve been making since your teens. Unless you are coding in assembly on a custom-built Linux kernel running entirely open-source hardware drivers, your work is fundamentally built on proprietary licenses.
What engine are you using? If it’s Unity or Unreal, you agreed to strict proprietary licenses just to download the executable. Even if you use Godot (which is open-source under the MIT license), it allows for proprietary commercialization, something Stallman actively despises because it permits developers to lock down their derivatives.
Are you using standard audio formats? Proprietary physics middleware? Closed-source anti-cheat or matchmaking APIs? The moment you compile your game using closed-source developer kits (like those required for PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo switch), you are legally bound to enforce proprietary terms on your end-user.
How do you distribute these games? If you sell your games on Steam, Epic, or the App Store, you are forcing your players to agree to restrictive, proprietary EULAs and DRM wrappers just to click the “install” button. Steam’s subscriber agreement is the exact opposite of everything Richard Stallman stands for.
If you are actually distributing your games entirely for free, strictly under a GPL-style copyleft license, and hosting them on a self-owned server for players running purely Free Software operating systems, then congratulations, you have maintained your ideological purity.
But if you charge money for your games on a commercial storefront, use commercial engines, or allow your game to be played on Windows, your players are bound by a web of proprietary licenses that you implicitly approved by choosing those platforms. You can’t champion Stallman’s absolute view on copyright while simultaneously profiting from the proprietary tech stacks that make modern game distribution possible.
Do you have a compelling moral counterargument?
Stories being owned is not how things always where, not by a long shot.
Bards, actors, and other performers would re-tell them, adding their own twists and artistic choices.
Paintings and books have been being sold for centuries, which in effect, are treated the same way DVD’s are.
The corporate capture of art and , and the monopoly of ideas are newer than you let on.
Remember: the original intent of copyright was to protect the SCIENCES and ARTS, not the copyright holder.
You mention bards adding their own twists. That actually proves my point. The audience didn’t “own” the bard’s unique performance or get to take it home; they just experienced the bard’s specific intellectual labor for the evening. A video game or software platform isn’t a public myth; it’s a highly specific, unique execution of labor.
Furthermore, you’re right that books and paintings have been sold for centuries, but those are static objects. When a painting is sold, the artist’s work is done. Modern digital ecosystems are living things that require active servers, database management, and ongoing engineering. If you demand perpetual ownership for a single $60 payment, who is morally obligated to provide the uncompensated labor to keep those servers running for the next twenty years?
Maybe stop treating private server owners like criminals, and get back to releasing server binaries like we used to?
The original developers of these games aren’t the only ones capable of hosting them.
I cut my teeth hosting by hosting game servers for me and my friends, and now work in the tech industry using those skills to pay rent.
Developers who gatekeep server binaries aren’t just doing a disservice to players, but to the future generation of IT workers, and those who will depend on them.
Furthermore, for many games, these are tacked on features to an already competent single player that doesn’t need online support.
This argument falls apart for anything that isn’t live service, which is basically everything I play…
You are conflating predatory always online DRM with actual live-service architecture. You are entirely right that tacking forced online requirements onto a single-player game is a terrible product choice, but it doesn’t change the underlying reality of ownership.
If a classical painter decides to hang their masterpiece in a pitch-black room, or a sculptor insists their work only be viewed through frosted glass, it makes for a miserable audience experience. But it is undeniably their right to do so. The creator always dictates the terms of engagement. Even if you are playing a completely offline game, you still do not own the code. You only bought a license to execute it. Feel free to go look at the EULA from ANY video game you’ve EVER purchased; you never owned the game, only a license.
Furthermore, demanding that developers just release server binaries treats backend architecture as if it is public property. Backend infrastructure is full of proprietary code, licensed third-party middleware, and security architecture that a studio cannot legally or safely hand over to the public. When a developer chooses to release server tools, that is a generous decision they made regarding their own intellectual labor. You do not have a moral or legal right to demand the keys to a developer’s proprietary backend just because you want to host it yourself. Whether it is a live-service giant or an offline indie game, the creator still gets to choose how their work is distributed.
Anyone who puts their own art on a pedastol deserves the anguish that comes from people enjoying it the “wrong” way.
I say this as someone who’s been making games since their early teens.
Furthermore, as much as they are the norm in gaming, proprietary software licenses where a fucking mistake, and I’d staple my ballsack to the ceiling before I’d license any code I care about with one.
Like fuck Richard Stallman for being a creep, but everything that man has ever said about copyright is completely accurate.
Even if that means not getting cutting edge toolkits.
You claim that creators shouldn’t put their work on a pedestal, yet you are putting your own ideological purity on a massive pedestal. If you are truly running a Stallman-approved, 100% proprietary-free operation, the reality of your published games is going to be incredibly restricted.
Let’s take a look at the EULA and dependency chain of these games you’ve been making since your teens. Unless you are coding in assembly on a custom-built Linux kernel running entirely open-source hardware drivers, your work is fundamentally built on proprietary licenses.
What engine are you using? If it’s Unity or Unreal, you agreed to strict proprietary licenses just to download the executable. Even if you use Godot (which is open-source under the MIT license), it allows for proprietary commercialization, something Stallman actively despises because it permits developers to lock down their derivatives.
Are you using standard audio formats? Proprietary physics middleware? Closed-source anti-cheat or matchmaking APIs? The moment you compile your game using closed-source developer kits (like those required for PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo switch), you are legally bound to enforce proprietary terms on your end-user.
How do you distribute these games? If you sell your games on Steam, Epic, or the App Store, you are forcing your players to agree to restrictive, proprietary EULAs and DRM wrappers just to click the “install” button. Steam’s subscriber agreement is the exact opposite of everything Richard Stallman stands for.
If you are actually distributing your games entirely for free, strictly under a GPL-style copyleft license, and hosting them on a self-owned server for players running purely Free Software operating systems, then congratulations, you have maintained your ideological purity.
But if you charge money for your games on a commercial storefront, use commercial engines, or allow your game to be played on Windows, your players are bound by a web of proprietary licenses that you implicitly approved by choosing those platforms. You can’t champion Stallman’s absolute view on copyright while simultaneously profiting from the proprietary tech stacks that make modern game distribution possible.