If Buying Isn’t Owning Games, Then Piracy Isn’t Stealing
Introduction
Digital games today are often not “owned” by players—they’re licensed. This has prompted a provocative chain of logic: if “buying” a game only grants you a license, not true ownership, then stealing it via piracy is not taking someone’s property. In this post, I explore that argument, bring in recent commentary from game developers and—even somewhat unusually—a perspective tied to farmers via farming‑simulation games, and assess whether piracy can reasonably be described as “not stealing."
1. The License vs. Ownership Debate
1.1 What do you actually “buy”?
Recent legal and consumer‑rights activity has confirmed the truth: in most cases—even products described as “bought”—you’re only purchasing a license to access a game. In California, a law (effective January 1, 2025) now requires digital storefronts (Steam, PlayStation Store, Xbox Store, eShop etc.) to clearly state that consumers are buying a license, not ownership .
Ubisoft explicitly stated in a 2024 lawsuit response that even buying a physical copy of The Crew only granted a license, not ownership—and then revoked licenses and ability to download the game when servers shut down in March 2024 .
Meanwhile, platforms like Steam state in their Subscriber Services Agreement that you do not own games—you license access to content, and the license can be revoked at the publisher’s discretion .
1.2 Developer perspectives: DRM, fragmentation, and preservation
Many developers weigh in on how DRM and licensing policies erode user control. Valve’s Gabe Newell has described DRM strategies as “dumb” because they diminish perceived value .
CD Projekt Red chooses to avoid DRM entirely, believing DRM is ineffective at fighting piracy and counterproductive to customer relationships. They found The Witcher 2, initially DRM‑protected, was pirated millions of times; later DRM‑free versions pirated far less. They released The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 without DRM, and openly support free DLC as a standard .
Activists like Ross Scott launched the Stop Killing Games initiative in 2024 after Ubisoft shut down The Crew, making the game unplayable even for people who had purchased it. The campaign insists that shutting down online‑only games or pulling licenses is an assault on consumer rights and digital preservation, and demands offline modes or private‑server options for long‑term access .
Video Games Europe—representing developers and publishers—argued that such requirements would undermine developer choice and raise prohibitive costs, especially for games designed around always‑online multiplayer support .
2. Farmers and Farming Simulator: A Tangential but Illustrative Angle
Interestingly, farmers themselves have interacted with these dynamics through Farming Simulator—a realistic simulation game that claims authenticity and attracts many players from real‑world agriculture: roughly 25% of players have some agricultural connection, and 10% are full‑time farmers .
Thomas Daum, who studied Farming Simulator 22, highlights how the game shapes ideas about what constitutes a modern “good farmer” by emphasizing industrial scale and expansion over sustainability. That illustrates a broader point: when simulation games are licensed, content, and access can shape real‑world attitudes—and the control over that content lies with rights holders, not gamers or farmers.
Farmers who play such games may feel connected to the virtual machinery and systems—but if they lose access due to license revocation or server shutdown, that connection is lost. Although this wasn't a commentary from farmers on piracy directly, it shows that people who care deeply about the game—because it ties into their livelihood or identity—are vulnerable when games vanish.
3. What Does “Piracy” Mean If You Don’t Own It?
3.1 Legal vs. moral framing
Traditional piracy is framed legally as copyright infringement: unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted material. That remains true—even if consumers only hold a license, not ownership. Piracy still violates copyright law or license agreements.
Morally, though, some argue that if you didn’t actually lose someone’s property—for example, because they never “owned” it—then you can't be accused of stealing. This is often phrased as: “If you didn’t own the game, downloading it for free isn’t stealing.”
3.2 Developer costs vs. consumer rights
Some developers and industry voices downplay piracy, arguing that good service and value can reduce piracy more effectively than enforcement . CD Projekt’s DRM‑free approach is a strategy that favors trust over restrictions. But piracy remains illegal regardless of licensing nuance.
Meanwhile, changes like California’s AB 2426 push for transparency about what you’re actually getting—clarifying that it's a license, not ownership .
3.3 The argument: if “buying isn’t owning,” is piracy “not stealing”?
Supporters of the logic assert:
If consumers never receive real ownership of a digital copy, then copying it does not deprive anyone of property—there’s no transfer of ownership.
When publishers can revoke access at will, users have tenuous rights anyway—so the moral claim to “ownership” is weak.
Critics counter:
Even if users don’t own the software outright, they paid for a license; piracy denies rights holders revenue and undermines contractual terms.
The law still defines unauthorized duplication as infringement, regardless of whether the license model is flawed.
4. Breaking Down the Key Points
4.1 License revocability and value removal
When publishers like Ubisoft revoke licenses—even for physical copies—they demonstrate that digital purchases are conditional. The Crew case shows companies treating games as licensed services they can take away, not immortal property .
4.2 Consumer frustration and preservation
Authors writing about digital libraries express unease that their game collections disappear or cannot be passed to heirs—or may vanish overnight with server shutdowns .
The Stop Killing Games movement directly frames license revocation and server shutdowns as threats to preservation and trust: “players are paying for these games… they’re effectively paying for a product that’s taken away” .
4.3 DRM and developer mindset
Major publishers rely on DRM, always‑online authentication, and licenses to maintain control. Valve acknowledged this fragmentation undermines user autonomy; CD Projekt opposes DRM precisely because it destroys goodwill and doesn’t even deter piracy .
5. Weighing the Argument: Is “Piracy ≠ Theft” Valid?
5.1 From the user’s viewpoint
If the user never truly owns the game:
They might reason that stealing a license is meaningless theft.
If Ubisoft can shut off The Crew anytime, what does “ownership” really mean?
5.2 From the rights-holder’s viewpoint
Piracy still deprives them of revenue from legitimate sales.
License agreements explicitly prohibit unauthorized copying—breaches remain infringement.
The contested moral logic doesn’t change legal reality.
5.3 But morally…?
Some gamers feel justified in pirating games with restrictive DRM or revocable licenses:
They treat piracy as a “response” to perceived license hypocrisy.
They rationalize: “If I paid and they canceled it anyway, they shouldn't profit again” or “Why pay DRM‑laden prices when sharing is possible?”
But most developers and IP holders see those feelings as misguided. The law and contractual expectations are clear: piracy remains unauthorized copying.
6. Recent Developer Comments: A Recap
Valef Newell (Valve): DRM strategies are counterproductive, fragment the user experience, and reduce game value .
CD Projekt Red: Avoids DRM entirely; saw lower piracy rates after removing it, and argues DRM alienates consumers without reducing theft .
Ross Scott (Stop Killing Games): Calls license revocations and shutdowns an assault on consumer rights, demanding preservation and offline access options .
Video Games Europe: Warns that preservation mandates (e.g. offline modes, private servers) risk raising costs and reducing developer flexibility .
7. Where Do Farmers Fit In?
While farmers haven't publicly weighed in on piracy debates, many play games like Farming Simulator, which shapes their concept of modern agriculture. If such a game disappears due to license revocation, it erases part of that imagined identity. The gaming license system impacts even those whose real livelihoods intersect with virtual farms. When you “buy” the simulator and it gets revoked, you lose a connection—to worldview, community, even to your profession—even if the game was never physically owned.
8. Final Assessment: Piracy Is Still Stealing—But the License Model is Broken
Piracy remains illegal and ethically questionable: even if consumers never own the digital asset, copying and sharing it without permission violates the license and denies revenue to creators.
The license model erodes trust: companies revoking access, shutting down servers, or hiding away games—even ones described as “bought”—feed frustration and fuel rationalizations for piracy.
The moral argument falls short of legality: ethical nuance doesn’t change IP law; piracy casts a shadow whether or not true ownership exists.
9. What Needs to Change?
Consumer protection laws, like California's AB 2426, mandate clear messaging: you’re buying a license, enforcement begins with transparency .
A “Right to Own” or DRM‑free option: voices on forums have called for systems where publishers must provide a DRM‑free version alongside licensed versions, allowing preservation, backup, and resale by consumers—akin to a “right to repair” for software .
Preservation initiatives: GOG’s Preservation Program and other archival-focused efforts help keep older games accessible beyond licensing lifetimes; including partnerships with European video game archives .
Industry willingness to support offline access: Ubisoft’s eventual promise to add offline modes to The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest shows that change is possible—if consumer pressure persists .
Conclusion
The provocative statement “If buying isn’t owning games, then piracy isn’t stealing” captures deep frustration with how digital game ownership is structured. But rebutting that argument requires distinguishing legal from moral perspectives. Legally, piracy remains infringement—even under license regimes. Morally, some users feel justified in resisting what they see as fraudulent restrictions.
Yet, the broader lesson is that the current licensing model is fundamentally broken. When licensed games can be revoked, servers shut down, and consumer access is revoked arbitrarily, it undermines the value of purchase. To bridge the gap between consumer ethics and the law, we need:
1. Transparency about licenses vs ownership.
2. DRM‑free or transferable options.
3. Preservation mandates or protection.
4. Preservation initiatives supported by both industry and archivists.
Only then can we begin to reconcile the dissonance: while piracy may remain illegal, the system that restricts real ownership is ripe for reform. Until that happens, arguments about piracy’s morality will continue to reflect the game licensing system’s failure, rather than justify
Comments
Post a Comment