It says right here you do not actually OWN the games you paid for

>It says right here you do not actually OWN the games you paid for

Attached: 640x489.jpg (640x489, 88K)

Right? How fucked is that.

Imagine goyim owning anything

You dont own your toaster either. Good luck trying to sell a toaster you made by copying it.

Stupid fucking kid gamers. You dont "own" IP you borrow it, and that's a good system. If you cant protect IP then no one will bother making it in the first place.

>paid

Attached: smug pirate anime girl.png (958x592, 380K)

>being a piratepoorfag
Enjoy your virses and bitcoin miners

It's ok, I bought a digital lease

Enjoy your locked down content in legal spyware goyim.

>pays $70
>doesn't even have virus or miners included with the game

You're in for a real shock when you become an adult and learn how the world works.

>thinking ELUAs mean anything

Imagine living in a house that you not only don't own, but they make you pay monthly to live there.

>monthly

Isn't that most houses unless you own the land too? I always wondered how that worked legally if the company that owned the land your house was on could legally strip you of it. I guess there's not much you could do.

They'll compensate you, usually for more than the value of the land and the home itself, but yeah. Other than protesting and trying to change their minds there's nothing you can do.
Land is pretty cheap to purchase anyways, but the work and cost of making it suitable for housing might be too much for most. Unless you're okay with no plumbing and well water.

>they'll compensate you
And somehow that makes it okay.

Eurolawyerfag here, in all families of roman law there is this really old civil law doctrine that goes like 'abusive terms of contract are non binding'. Is it in most Europenis societal and cultural mondus operandi to expect ownership when you buy a widget? Yes it is and thus my educated guess would be that company going for ToS enforcement on ownership would be outright denied especially in countries where court case leads to establishing a binding precedent.

Attached: b45.jpg (817x818, 358K)

I've never heard of not owning the land the house is on as well. Is this common in cities? I've never lived in one

if you don't have ability to physically protect your things from any threat (including the government) then you do not own that shit either. I fucking hate you bean counting austists. as long as you have access to it what difference does it make?

Intellectual property is a good thing for content creators because they get credit & rewards for their work.
It can be abused, we know, but if we just get rid of it, things will get worse! (Dishonest mofos will steal from everywhere without restrictions )

Me under the table.

Your statement here in green is, 'implying pixels are illegal'. Can you explain what you meant by this?

Attached: gettyimages-168271312-1024x1024.jpg (1024x683, 257K)

You don't own physical copies either, you just paid a license fee to use it.