Sorry for coming across as defensive.

You are giving very valid points.

I'm aware there are differences between physical and digital. My exception with how digital are often sold is that rights have been skewed heavily in favour of the IP holder, with them being able to dictate terms infeasible in the physical world. Maybe the word "Greedy" was a bit loaded, however the terms with in software licenses go far beyond the existing protection copyright laws. For a company to be successful it has to be a little mercenary and take advantage of what it can, except they went too far and too long with out being challenged.

200 years of IP law eventually turned into the copyright system which gave IP holders protection yet gave fair use to those using that IP. Software licensing allowed IP Holders to bypass those copyright laws by dictating their own terms. Now that practice has been quashed for commercial software but consumer software like games is still in a legal grey zone.

The additional problem is the IP holder can have terms that have no legal basis and yet enforce them, putting the onus on you to bring them to court to challenge their action.

I have no problem with capitalism but it does require an opposing force, normally supplied by legislation, to keep it in check. In the information age there was huge delay between implementation and check.

As for your toothbrush, it is you that choose whether that item can be used by another, not the toothbrush manufacturer. I agree there are some physical item which you would have to rebuy for dozens of reasons. There is no way on earth I'd let our 7 Year old read our copy of "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" (Limited edition Amazon edition). But again that is me (actually my wife since I bought it for her) making the decision.

I believe strongly in fair compensation for developers and publishers. I've asked GoG to make it easier to purchase multiple licenses. Same when I bought Torchlight 2 from the developers. I asked for an easier way to buy multiple licenses. They replied saying they were happy for me to use the one license simultaneously on up to 10 machines in our household.

But that fairness must go both ways, which is not how a number of companies operate.

I would say that it's common practice to allow family sharing of games (i.e., several users on the same device using one purchased copy of games), even when the license states "personal use". That's how consoles and Steam work. Not every platform addresses this or provides specific support for it, but I think it's clear that "personal use" doesn't preclude this kind of sharing.

There's two strains of interpretation at least re: legal meaning of personal. You are right one of them is the typically anti-capitalist one (ergo, synonymous with non commercial). Note this does not mean communist... it is older, and Christian based conception even. The other however is individualistic and mostly based on the Enlightenment, and let's say Napoleonic codes, though even that arguably goes back to Rome.

Still, much interesting as that would be to discuss further. Your more cutting point is correct, yet somewhat misleading. You are absolutely correct that most software licenses are not on named user basis. They are on a unique key basis though, and that unique key is usually defined as being not transmissible.

That fair enough for agreement?

Because I'm not going to engage on interpretations of property law for physical goods, where there are established traditions allowing transfer of property. We both know what those are. The fundamental point under dispute is not for me to defend an extreme strawman position of what physical property entails. It is whether that model is / should be / can be applied without modification to intangible property.

I think it's obvious that it has not benn copy pasted across. And this thread is a perfect example of how consumer expectations are not in alignment with commercial practices around licensing / ownership of software products.

Now, how am I supposed to remain pissed off if you get all reasonable like that? You spoilsport...

Seriously though. Much appreciated this reply of yours. I will say very clearly that I don't think what you are asking for in terms of family sharing is likewise excessive. It's the future actually. I think Amazon and Valve will leverage those family friendly practices and the market overall is likely to follow in some way - because these are desired service components by the market. It will mean more DRM though, in some way... :( I think there was a big thread around that recently even. I had a post drafted for it even... need to find that stuff.

Okay, so I guess the license terms don't really mean much, and what I said is wrong, in the sense that you can't assume that certain wording and certain actions go together.

Still I'd say that legally anyone sharing is in the clear, since Valve publicly provides tools for sharing, so it would be obvious that the EULA is wrong.

Yes! Keyword being practice. The legality however is usually strictly defined with it being illegal to share - until challenged by broader cultural / legal traditions from related domains. So it is precluded legally at least, just not in any way shape or form that is pragmatically enforceable. And thank god for that... but then again DRM schemes are usually how those functionalities are getting implemented - consoles, Steam... you see it right? - and so I find it very ironic that more people don't see that for the Trojan horse it kind of is...

Edit: typo.

Also adding. The thing is Valve is not even the Rights Holder. So what I get curious is what kind of compensation Valve agreed with the big publishers in quid pro quo for establishing the sharing functionality...

Except that's not what you've been arguing, so hopefully you'll return to this. It is important to start from what model has been applied to intangible property, and continue from there. That model does, normally, allow more than the person who purchased the content to view it. Far as I understand the normal assumption is that if a person owns a device and some digital content, and that content has been installed on the device, then other people who use the device can access the content.

Let me see if I've got this correct, OP.

You bought a game on GOG, DRM-free, and now you... you want to install it? Install it AND play it? On a computer that you own, in your own household?

I think you'd better get down to your local police department and turn yourself in.

NO! The cops won't do shit!

This is up to us!

Go get.......THE COMFY CHAIR!!!

You know... I suddenly had an urge... if I could buy say 25 copies of Ring Runner while it's on 75%-80% discount ($2.50 per) I'd totally do it, and then donate it to the local police force one for each employee... and if there aren't enough, well I'm sure I'd go for another 25 next sale... and when everyone has a copy, go to the fire department... then the emergency services... etc...

Hmmm seems like a good idea to me :)

From release to about 2009 Steams SSA actually stated that the account is for personal use and that you are responsible for any action of any person you allow to use your account.

That was the Steam I first started to use. Me and the Wife used my account online at the same time playing different games, all with the blessing of VALVe.

Then some point in 2008/2009 they changed Steam and the SSA to only allow the owner to use the account and blocked simultaneous access.

The thing is at that point, even though some people complained and requested some kind of family sharing, Steam was optional. You could walk into Game and there was 15% of the shelf space for PC games. Most games didn't require steam. So there was not much resistance.

VALVe's timing on this was perfect. HAd they done it 2 years earlier it would have stunted its growth, 2 years later and the 30 million customers would have kicked up a stink.

I don't think VALVe has made any compensation to publishers, nor would they. Don't forget not only are valve ensuring a license is not being used multiple times they also blocking every other license that person owns regardless of use.
No, I don't want to play it.

I want my son or one of my 4 daughters or my wife (just the one) to play it.

I know I can install it on their machines, but its vague on whether they can actually play them.

I have no issue returning, but I'm afraid you're confusing me here. We disagree about what the dominant model is... the should be and can be were not so much references to the previous discussion. At least with you, though please note I have made some ethical arguments towards the should, and I have implied on the can - by mentioning the level of practical enforceability.

Going deeper on how things are. The discussion started specifically to GOG, and already in post 27 I implied GOG's model does not legitimate multiple users of one license. I made that explicit further on. But at the same time the discussion also broadened to software in general. And in general terms in my previous reply to you I am arguing that the usual model is indeed different from the one of tangible property, and likewise typically does not legitimise multiple users of one license.

None of the above says anything about practical realities of usage. Nor if names are kept or what kind of personally identifiable data is used to identify licensees. Or whether the majority of users / licensees actually understand which is the model they are contracting. In fact I went further and already granted you that there is indeed a disconnect between that assumed perception of reality, and the actual contractual legal reality around software licenses. So I am agreeing with you on what the perception is, on what the assumption is. But that's it. I'll even add now, to what I said so far, that the model you are positing was the dominant one when software always had a tangible media - disks, cartridges, CDs... ergo 15 years ago or earlier. Then this thing called the internet kind of became more and more relevant for software distribution... and the dominant licensing terms changed. This is recent history and I'm sure you yourself have experienced it in person. The story continues even, with individual named accounts becoming more and more common, and the licenses tied to that account / subscription. So although I agree with you most licenses are not named today, we are heading in that direction, and fast.

I'm really unsure if you misunderstood me somewhere, or are insisting on something that I'm misunderstanding... Because really, the implication you are now making that I'm dissembling about why I have argued or even what I have argued... that is funny. I hope I'm reading your intent wrong. I mean, what exactly do you think I've been arguing? Pray tell. I'm sure you know better than me... 0_o

Let me be explicit. The assumption that others can use your device and your software license on it is a common assumption, and it's in practice the reality. Legally speaking though, things are somewhat more subtle.

Thanks for those interesting comments. I don't think I particularly cared about the TOS for Steam back then. Given Steam's size you may be right there is no compensation. I find it a bit hard to believe though, I'd expect Steam to try and play nice, rather than push EA and Ubi further into their distribution platforms.

To be an insisting pain in the ass on your family sharing though. It's not vague at all. Legally speaking they can't... specifics may vary though, depending on the EULA from each publisher. GOG tries to be nice, and to me this exemplifies the risks of that approach very well. Make some comments in a FAQ or forums, have those interpreted as an exception to the general contracted rule, get accused of inconsistency, eventually have that become leverage to overturn legally the contracted terms of service into the ones you prefer.

I'm not saying that's your intent. But it may happen. It does happen. And if so GOG will not be treated in court as a nice service provider. They will be treated like a greedy corporation hurting the little guy. Because ideology...

Staying ambigous is trying to be nice? I would rather have they make the ToS clear. I can still ignore it, but at least I will know what they mean. Actually I will ignore it anyway in this regard and they should have no technical possibility to do anything about it, so they can as well at least write it as clearly as possible. This may sound strange but not much stranger than what you propose they are doing (staying deliberately unclear).

Are you sure it means this in this context? Otherwise I could gift them to anyone I want because gifting is surely non-commercial?

I think so in this case. It's not like a dogma...

Telling people to install in as many PCs as they want, without being also explicit that does NOT mean they can all be used at the same time is trying to be nice. To themselves because it's a marketing slogan, but also to the audience because GOG might not actually care that much about family sharing. But they can't admit that unambiguously or their suppliers will be pissed. But please do not assume I'm saying this is a deliberate strategy. I see it more as an adaption - a successful navigation between dangers of sorts. Piss the customer or piss the supplier?

I mean, half of humanity is under average in rationality. That's pure mathematics. No surprise then that instead of reasoning with someone, half the time on average (and note how the chance goes higher the more rational you are) a person might just "be nice" and make something up for plausibility or persuasion in communication. I put nice in quotes but I hope it's clear I don't see it as being "not nice". It's actually amoral.

You know, kind of like religion of omnipotent deities probly came about... or fairytales about flowers protecting us from guns... but I digress. Did I slay the strangeness for you? Nothing is more natural than ambiguity ;) it's just too convenient, and I don't see that as implying malicious strategies, just a reflection of real "dangers" and efficiency navigating them.