I don’t think the Lockean argument actually gets you where you want it to go.

Locke’s labor theory of property doesn’t just say creators own the fruits of their labor. It also says they have the right to alienate that property, to sell it, transfer it, or give it away. Once that transfer occurs, ownership changes hands. That’s the entire point of property rights.

This is where your comparison to theater performances breaks down.

A performance is inherently ephemeral. Of course you only buy admission. But books, paintings, sculptures, and other tangible works have been bought and sold for centuries. When Rembrandt sold a painting, he didn’t retain the right to dictate who displayed it, resold it, or inherited it. When someone bought a book, the author retained the copyright, but they didn’t retain ownership of that physical copy.

That’s the distinction your argument glosses over.

Physical media didn’t create some bizarre loophole that tricked consumers into believing they owned art. Copyright law has always separated ownership of a copy from ownership of the intellectual property. Buying a novel never meant you owned the copyright. It meant you owned that particular copy.

The “historical anomaly” argument doesn’t really hold either. Technology creating new forms of property isn’t evidence that those forms are somehow illegitimate. Printing presses, photography, automobiles, patents, and even digital storage all changed what could be owned. Calling something a historical anomaly doesn’t make it philosophically suspect.

Where your argument has merit is with services. An MMO, cloud software, or any product that depends on ongoing servers and continuous development is fundamentally different from a finished single-player game or a movie sitting on a disc. Those genuinely require ongoing labor.

But once you start arguing that creators retain moral authority over every copy they’ve sold forever, you’ve left Locke behind. You’re no longer defending property rights, you’re defending perpetual control after the sale. That’s a very different philosophical position, and I don’t think your conclusion follows from your premise.

Your entire premise is based upon on a couple of misunderstandings.

First, on a technical note regardless if you have bought a physical disk or downloaded a digital copy you are still bound by an end user licensing agreement. The real historical difference amounts to a right to resale. There is no reason why, other than corporate greed, that we cannot resale our digital copies. Ideally this right should be restored by clarifying you own a single transferable copy of the code.

Second, I think you make some important points that deserve to be discussed. You pack a lot of information in a very small amount of space which is very impressive. I am concerned that your points may be missing some important context. Also, when you bring morality into the discussion it makes me want to climb up on a metaphorical soap box because I see things very differently from a moral perspective.

For thousands of years there was no Intellectual Property (IP). Artist copied each other as they always did and still do to this day. No ownership was needed or expected because all art and science is inherently iterative. What you accept as reality is really the modern “fluke” only existing in the last few hundred years.

On a minor point, you also seem to confuse art and science with commerce. The majority of art is never intended for commercial sale. It is actually a very small amount that is created solely for commercial sale, yet we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing it. It is important to point out this distinction otherwise we reduce all art to monetary value when in reality that is not the reason it is created.

Science cannot exist without iteration. Our current system simply transfers science developed by individuals, often with public funding, to corporations. We will also see this theme in IP where corporations take their employee’s work for their benefit and even worse, non-employee’s work as well.

Every once in awhile we will hear about an artist or scientist suing and winning against a major corporation, thus reinforcing the IP propaganda that it defends the little guy. The reality is these are the exceptions not the rule. It is not surprising though, by granting such an insane right of artificial scarcity that it would be abused by capital. This reality taints all IP and not bringing it up is a disservice to the discussion.

From patent trolls to copyright scammers the reality is the little guy is the one who gets continuously screwed. So many people’s life works have been stolen from them by corporations. This realization should make anyone skeptical of these rights when they are continuously abused by corporations.

Due to these capilitistic designs the small percentage of commercial creator’s rights are usually taken by corporations. This system is highlighted by the reality seen in the record industry and the fact that very few preformers own their own works. This shows us it is about protecting corporations and not non-wealthy individuals like you or I.

Most people don’t realize that defending copyright or patents take years and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. This system is extremely inaccessible to individuals unless they are wealthy and can hire proxies to litigate and disseminate their lies for them. This creates perverse incentives that allow corporations to take other’s rights.

The very foundation of the US was based on intellectual piracy with the founding fathers encouraging it to build American industry. This can be seen in modern day with countries like China (although I feel they are no longer borrowing as much because of their amazing innovations). Thomas Jefferson is a famous inventor who basically paid other people to do all the work, remind you of Musk much. We must recognize that we have always ignored IP when it suits us. This can be seen with AI right now.

Back to morality and IP. The concept that a creator gets to benefit from the same labour over and over again through artificially scarcity enforced by the state is pretty ridiculous honestly. It is absurd on its face and an affront to how most people earn a living. People may deserve compensation, but not an endless revenue stream.

Once again, this is rarely about the individual as corporations and the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of these legal rights that they have spent hundreds of years lobbying the state and the court systems for.

Indeed the origin of copyright was about control and censorship and not protect individuals rights. I will admit that when it comes to IP, patents did have slightly more honest beginnings by forcing the grantee to expose how their inventions works as an actual public good. Regardless of this one benefit to the public, the patent is inherently a tool of control as well.

We can see how modern day industry has been shaped by abusing and misusing the right of patent. Creating an impossible barrier to entry, blocking competition, effectively endlessly renewing patents as seen in the pharmaceutical industry, patenting concepts others have developed because of first to file rights, patenting concepts that do not meet the the proper standards by regulatory capture, etc all show the system is broken and is merely a tool for the wealthy to manipulate the market

Capturing art on physical media is not new as evidenced by as far back as cave art and countless other examples throughout human history. Technology certainly changes the equation, but your argument that this has lead to consumer entitlement is bizarre. I suppose your trying to say by owning a copy of the movie the consumer also feels they “own” the movie itself. I won’t discount some people may believe this, but I also don’t think this is a realistic assessment of the situation.

There is a major problem when you lump code in with other creative works. I won’t spend too much time on this because it is a rather large topic. What I will say is the creator doesn’t own the code because just like math there is often an obvious way to the solution. You should never be able to own a solution under system of enforced artificial scarcity. Software patents are absolute garbage that stifle creativity.

I am glad you recognize the difference between digital goods and physical goods. I think you come to very contradictory and dystopian conclusions then I would though.

In your world no one owns anything digitally because “creator” aka the corporation needs moar money. You pay to be able to grace yourself with their amazing talent for but a brief moment.Your digital media is not yours and can be taken away at any time. Your game can charge you every time you play it, you operating system is spyware because the owner of the software wants it to be.

In my world I pay for my hardware. Keeping those zeros and ones alive is something I pay for not them. I pay for the hardware, electricity, and connection to the Internet. I pay to upgrade and maintain it. I have invested interest and a right to my property. I am not paying for an experience. I am paying for a file and once I have possession of the file it is mine to do with what I want. This is digital reality.

Your argument seems to be copyright maximalist crossed with corporate shill. I also find your argument devolves into almost a moral panic of technology. A lot of what you criticize is similar to what people said about records and photography. Interestingly these arguments are currently being used against AI. I think you may enjoy this link.

https://medium.com/@elarson39/photography-was-historically-considered-arts-most-mortal-enemy-is-ai-69a2dc2f43ef

Equating labor to copying ones and zeros is pretty comical. The reason an artist is paid is they perform. Insane copyright laws have lead to bizarre situations like car mechanics in England getting sued for listen to music while they work on cars because customers might hear it and they don’t have the performance rights.

I will leave you with this conodorun.

There is only one way to truly protect your art. Never share it with anyone. There is only one way to prove your work is truly original. Be raised by wolves never interacting with humans and produce great works of art without using any frame of reference other than the ones you invented yourself in a vacuum. Only then is your art truly original and protected.

The problem is when you add the context of reality to your argument it just falls apart.

You do not own a creator’s code, film, or digital ecosystem, and you never did.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Art is the common property of all mankind. Art is the human soul. The very idea that you can restrict the creativity of another human being is an affront to the human spirit. You know what is truly a modern anomaly? Copyright and all IP law. For 99% of human history, artists would laugh in your face if you suggested that a musician had some God-given right to prevent others from singing a song they just wrote.

You have no natural right to “intellectual property,” because ultimately what you mean by “intellectual property” is the temporary right to exclusive sale of a product. And that is not a natural right. It’s not a natural right like freedom of speech, or even ownership of tangible property. Copyright violation is fundamentally different from real theft because it doesn’t deprive the owner of an original. Yes, you as an artist may feel you have some innate ownership to an idea, but that is a sense of privilege and entitlement that comes from misunderstanding the history and purpose of IP law. Hell, for most of history, artists were not even considered the source of creative works. Medieval painters didn’t sign their works, because they considered God to be the real creator. Before that, the Muses got credit.

Here is what you are missing. Copyright is not an innate right. It’s a useful legal compromise, nothing more. We discovered through trial and error that providing a limited period of exclusive use of a work to an artist helps get more art made. But that’s all it is, a pragmatic compromise. Do not confuse it for a natural right like life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

No one creates art in a vacuum. Everything is inspired and derived from works that came before it. There are no original stories. Artists are only able to create works because they’ve trained and studied on the works of countless other artists that came before them. Your work as an artist is just one tiny piece of a grand cultural tapestry. And as you were able to benefit from the commons, in turn your work will return to the commons to inspire others. A drop from the ocean. An ocean from a drop. That is the nature of art and creativity.

So… We should go backwards instead of forward?

For thousands of years back you could trade people for cows, owning your life is a massive historical misunderstanding.

You could own the Mona Lisa. You could own the original Dante’s inferno. For thousands of years there wasn’t the technology to have a copy of the Iliad, then there was and you could have a copy that wasn’t man-made, the press was born. You couldn’t have a copy of a painting without a massive spending on a replica, then in 1600 in Japan with wooden blocks they mass distributed art of Hokusai. You couldn’t own music until you could. You couldn’t own performances until you could.

Those were never moral or logical reasons not to, the technology just didn’t exists. Now the technology does exist and you say that because it didn’t before, then it’s a fluke?

For most of human history people died at early ages, we should go back to that and ditch all antibiotics I guess then, if “history” is the bar you’re measuring “moral”.

Also, guess what, the architect of the work was never in control of their art nor had the “moral authority” of how their work is consumed. Do you really thing that Homer personally went and trained everyone who wanted to interpret the Iliad? Your whole argument is based in something that didn’t even existed in the first place with tons of examples of the contrary that the only thing I can think is that you’re trolling or severely brainwashed.

They sold a product, not an “experience”. Without massive access and preservation of art in all forms civilization couldn’t even begin to grow as fast as it did in the last thousand years.

And before anything else, the mere concept of “owning” is the single most important part of capitalism, if they want to play the “owning” game then we should all be able to play the game. Also historically “owning” didn’t exist. We should course correct to the one true way of tribadism and nomads. I guess.

Why is it necessary?

The opinions of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are not absolutel nor ubiquitous. They may have said things that are no longer, or never were accurate and almost certainly should never be held to be inviolate/permanent.

Which stems from licensing and rights

I like that discs aren’t tied to an online account, so anyone in possession of it can use it to play the game. The company can’t take away access like they can banning your online account.

You can resell or trade a disc though. Or at least have been able to up until now I bet they start tying those to specific accounts now while they still make them until 2028.

This intentionally misses the point.

It’s physical and digital distribution.

That’s fair, it’s just ubiquitous. Search Twitter and Bluesky for official game studio and personal developer accounts. They almost always post about their sales soon after a launch. I don’t have any on hand, sorry. I do remember suckerpunch and insomniac doing so all the time.

Edit: https://en.gamegpu.com/news/igry/utechka-insomniac-raskryla-realnoe-sootnoshenie-fizicheskikh-i-tsifrovykh-prodazh-playstation

deleted by creator

I do not even have a tiktok. Who are you talking about?

You can also use that license that comes on that disc and transfer it and sell it or trade it to someone else if you choose.

That choice is being taken away.

Hard drives are physical you can even put it on tape or break out the floppies. No drm is the real winner and true ownership

Download the offline installer and now you have possession.

Further, because GOG enforces no DRM or mandatory sign-ins, so that means that you also have control over that copy of the game - you can install it and play it however and whenever you see fit.

For GOG games were you downloaded and kept the offline installer, the only way that the rightsholder has of stopping you from installing and playing that game is to sue you, which is:

• Almost certainly not worth it for then due to the cost of taking somebody to court for it versus what they would gain if they won.
• They actually have to have an actual legal basis for unilateraly changing the licensing agreement with you and hence be allowed to block you from continuing with the activity you have a license for (installing and running that game), which they almost certainly do not have in pretty much the whole World since EULAs aren’t valid there (they’re considered an attempt at, after a sale is completed, forcing unilateral changes to the implicit contract which is the sale, so have no legal validity)

With other stores they can just force the store to take down the game and now it’s up to YOU to sue THEM to get restitution and the “not worth it” is now something that goes against you (unless you have access to a Small Claims Court in the jurisdiction you’re in, are you really going to sue them for a 50 bucks game?)

In fact, physical media is worse than digital GOG games, because the former can have phone-home DRM or mandatory sign-ins so you have possession but not control.

PS: However if the point you were making was about resale, then it’s a valid point. Mind you, physical media with phone-home DRM or mandatory sign-ins can also be de facto unsellable if that’s what the game maker wants.

Good point, I’m guessing it probably falls short of physical media in that way. As I understand it, they let you download an install file for the games you purchase, which you can save and use offline. I doubt that publishers would put effort into enabling a second hand games market

Up until the Wii era you could just insert the disc in the console and start playing immediately, it was much more convenient than waiting an hour for a game to download and install. You didn’t need to manage disk space as well. Or login before playing. The industry destroyed the convenience. Now only Switch has an option to start playing from cartridge.

Doesn’t most of the physical media still require downloads to actually play anyway? I don’t own a console but it seems like every time I’m at one of my friends who do and they’re putting a new game in they have to wait on it to install/update or whatever. Maybe it’s just the big AAA ones.

Kinda; that’s often the reason you see $120 SuperDeluxe editions of games, where the protagonist’s pants have a bit of purple trim. Or $20 “boosts” that skip the first 3 levels (which you’d get by playing two matches)

It’s very much an artifact of wealth consolidation.

In some sense yeah, I’ve heard from some of my more affluent friends buying multiple copies for different platforms. For example, I know someone with at least 4 different copies of GTA-V

I see no reason not to pirate a game I bought digitally if it is then removed as a playable game.

Same for movies, if you bought it, then it should be yours.

I think they should only let you rent movies online to avoid this issue totally.

Also a ton of games have day 1 patches that you’d need to download anyway from their servers. I don’t recall seeing standalone installers for patches like we used to have. So buying a physical copy just makes you feel good rather than actually avoiding the problem with digital copies

A license that can be resold or given away. Not so with digital only licenses.

Yeah … Morality is subjective… If the majority of a given population does a thing, that thing is moral within that population.

I gotta disagree. The only requirement is that the consumer doesn’t blindly trust companies when buying things more expensive than bread.

It should be common sense to check what they actually get when they buy something that 1. Isn’t tangible and 2. Is expected to last. But people don’t, not because they’re not perfectly informed, but because they lack basic critical thinking.

Time isn’t an issue either. It takes 10 minutes, one time, to figure out what stores give you actual ownership and which don’t, in the case of gaming.