Support NeoGAF

[phosphor112]

Comparing a DVD to a home purchase. My, how far we've come.

I mean, think about it. Are you really be OK with a society in which legally even a goddamn video game makes you sign a contract when you buy it?

If so, congratulations, you've given every single company that manufactures any consumer good a foolproof way to absolve themselves of any liability for anything ever and dictate to you what you can do with it. They just need to stick a license agreement in the box.

Almost every game EULA I've seen includes a provision against modifying or reverse-engineering. That means every single mod ever released (that doesn't use included editing tools) for any such game is a violation. If EULAs are law, that makes it a crime. You OK with that?

You do realize that even Linux has a license agreement that you have to abide by... Seriously now...

 

[faceless007]

Because you don't own that media. You bought a license to *use* that media.

That's what the companies say. I don't care. If I buy it it's mine.

What's the difference under copyright law between a game and a music CD? None. So would you be OK if music companies started putting EULAs in CDs saying you're not allowed to rip it to any other format for use in any device besides a CD player?

Not everything is open source.

More assumptions. Where did I say a goddamn thing about open source?

 

[Freyjadour]

'free lulz'

God they're so fucking annoying.

Wooooosh, I say. Woosh.

 

[jorma]

Who is talking about no lawyer? Of course I'd have a lawyer. The lawyer would simply make it so that my pleading guilty netted me a lesser charge and thus a lesser sentence. I would not plead innocent, however, since I am not innocent. I am adult who broke the law and I know that.

The corporation is hardly "spiteful." They're protecting their business interests, rightfully so, from someone who broadcast that they were hurting them and breaking the law in the process

If you had paid any attention to the threads about this lawsuit you would know that they are acting in a very spiteful way. Not like adults. They act like a child who sold his favourite toy but still want to be able to tell the kid they sold it to how play with it.

 

[squatingyeti]

Why the fuck does the phone exception even matter in this situation? There are TWO MORE YEARS before consoles can be (potentially) added to the exceptions. What he did was illegal, whether or not he will convince the judge what he did with the PS3 was no different than the phone, he is still guilty. The judge only makes rulings based on the interpretations of the law, he/she doesn't make or modify them.

You bring this shit up every fucking thread.

Jesus, just don't respond if you continue to be so incapable of grasping, even remotely, what my statements are. First of all, read WHY I made that statement and try to grasp the context involved. He was talking about challenging laws put in place. Based on the stance he has been taking, phones would never have been allowed to be jailbroken.

Also, for the umpteenth time, fair use does not make him guilty, it makes him innocent. So, it DOES matter what he is able to convince the judge. If he can show it should be fair use, the he didn't break any law. So please, you've continued to show a complete lack of understanding with anything I post. Just leave it next time.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Who is talking about no lawyer? Of course I'd have a lawyer. The lawyer would simply make it so that my pleading guilty netted me a lesser charge and thus a lesser sentence. I would not plead innocent, however, since I am not innocent. I am adult who broke the law and I know that.

Even though your lawyer could argue that the evidence placed against you is circumstantial? and you could get no jail time or punishment.

In this scenario you aren't inherently caught doing an illegal activity you are accused of it.

You're arguing in absolutes where as we are not. If you absolutely were caught using drugs with insurmountable evidence pointing to that, then no one would blame you for choosing the guilty verdict over the not-guilty verdict.

 

[phosphor112]

Jesus, just don't respond if you continue to be so incapable of grasping, even remotely, what my statements are. First of all, read WHY I made that statement and try to grasp the context involved. He was talking about challenging laws put in place. Based on the stance he has been taking, phones would never have been allowed to be jailbroken.

Also, for the umpteenth time, fair use does not make him guilty, it makes him innocent. So, it DOES matter what he is able to convince the judge. If he can show it should be fair use, the he didn't break any law. So please, you've continued to show a complete lack of understanding with anything I post. Just leave it next time.

Where in the DMCA does it say security circumvention is allowed under fair use? There are VERY SPECIFIC reasons for allowing security circumvention, and he's done neither.

 

[NullPointer]

What's the difference under copyright law between a game and a music CD? None. So would you be OK if music companies started putting EULAs in CDs saying you're not allowed to rip it to any other format for use in any device besides a CD player?

More assumptions. Where did I say a goddamn thing about open source?

I don't buy disks any more. I download mp3s from Amazon, because what they offer fits my needs.

That's what the companies say. I don't care. If I buy it it's mine.
...
More assumptions. Where did I say a goddamn thing about open source?

To take what you're saying to an extreme but logical conclusion, it should be legal for the entire internet to get to work bypassing and circumventing security in any piece of software released so that you can experience the warm glow of feeling fully entitled to what you've purchased. No software security mechanism could ever withstand that, so you're in effect advocating a world where no software could be secured. Personally I don't believe that is a reasonable position.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

How does Anonymous always manage to come off looking bad. They could be saving kittens from a burning building, and they'd still manage to come off as douchebags.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Where in the DMCA does it say security circumvention is allowed under fair use? There are VERY SPECIFIC reasons for allowing security circumvention, and he's done neither.

Exceptions can be put into the DMCA.

and I'm sure they can make a case for the "Testing Security Clause."

 

[faceless007]

It certainly makes you childish when you break a law and then cry about it and beg for money like a bitch, refusing to take responsibility even when you broadcast you crime.

There is nothing to be gained by fighting something that has been upheld in caught over and over. The drug laws will be overturned when a vast majority of Americans agree it needs to be, and not a moment before. Not because Amir0x was caught with a few grams of Shrooms.

If every single person thought as you, no law would ever be declared unconstitutional because no one would ever be willing to make a test case. Should the two guys who got arrested for sodomy that led to Lawrence v. Texas have just "manned up" and accepted their prison time?

 

[Kermit The Dog]

Nope, don't rip DVDs to my PC. I don't watch DVDs on my PC at all. I have, in fact, a massive DVD collection and Blu-Ray collection numbering in the thousands and haven't ripped a single one.

When I was younger (like nearly ten years ago now), I downloaded a few movies illegally and got caught. I had to switch ISPs. That was the consequences for the action. I think those companies were totally in the right in pursuing me and taking action. I take responsibility for what I do.

Oh geez, you are so full of it.

 

[faceless007]

I don't buy disks any more. I download mp3s from Amazon, because what they offer fits my needs.

Christ, what is with the people here using "I don't use that thing, therefore I don't care if it's infringed for others."

To take what you're saying to an extreme but logical conclusion, it should be legal for the entire internet to get to work bypassing and circumventing security in any piece of software released so that you can experience the warm glow of feeling fully entitled to what you've purchased. No software security mechanism could ever withstand that, so you're in effect advocating a world where no software could be secured. Personally I don't believe that is a reasonable position.

I'm not in favor of any circumvention or copyright infringement that directly results in loss of compensation to the maker. You'll notice every example of circumvention I've defended in this thread are things that are in no way harmful to the content makers. I have no problem with companies trying to secure their software against attacks, and I am not pro-piracy or pro-open-source anything (just don't care about that aspect). But if a company tries to prohibit me from doing something I would pre-DMCA have been legally allowed to do and which does not harm them in anyway, fuck them.

Again: if you lump me in with GeoHot you have to lump in Lessig as well.

 

[phosphor112]

How does Anonymous always manage to come off looking bad. They could be saving kittens from a burning building, and they'd still manage to come off as douchebags.

These guys are amateurs, DDOSing? Anyone can do that. If this was the real deal, information would have been stolen.

Exceptions can be put into the DMCA.

and I'm sure they can make a case for the "Testing Security Clause."

An exception two years from now wont help him. Also, "testing security clause" doesn't include publishing said security circumvention to the world. One last thing, he's clearly stated WHY he has hacked the PS3, and it was to use it to it's "fullest extent."

 

[NullPointer]

Christ, what is with the people here using "I don't use that thing, therefore I don't care if it's infringed for others."

I guess I was making an indirect point - that I have a choice in how I buy my media. If the terms are too onerous I don't have to buy it. I can go somewhere else.

I'm not in favor of any circumvention or copyright infringement that directly results in loss of compensation to the maker. You'll notice every example of circumvention I've defended in this thread are things that are in no way harmful to the content makers. I have no problem with companies trying to secure their software against attacks, and I am not pro-piracy or pro-open-source anything (just don't care about that aspect). But if a company tries to prohibit me from doing something I would pre-DMCA have been legally allowed to do and which does not harm them in anyway, fuck them.

To keep it simple: Is it fine/legal/justified/OK in your opinion to bypass or crack the security of software and then broadcast the security keys or the means to circumvent that security?

 

[jintek]

These guys are amateurs, DDOSing? Anyone can do that. If this was the real deal, information would have been stolen.

Yeah, I'd much rather see an anonymous group deal a heavy real blow to Sony like leaking the NPDRM key, or releasing a 3.60 CFW...something. At least it'd be entertaining and I'd enjoy it, especially the epic forum lulz. But DDOS is pretentious bullshit. Only thing that would impress me regarding DDOS is if they could keep it going for a week straight or something, or cause massive issues for PSN.

 

[itxaka]

"I don't do those things so I don't care if they are fair or not"

Jeez, that is the last thing I would say ever. If everyone was like that we will be fucked.

 

[sharath_kumar]

I hope sony goes after these idiots. These assholes should spend some serious jail time along with their leader geo.

 

[vareon]

Whoa, respect gained on Amir0x for facing the consequences thing.

 

[faceless007]

I guess I was making an indirect point - that I have a choice in how I buy my media. If the terms are too onerous I don't have to buy it. I can go somewhere else.

Amazon MP3 has a license agreement and Terms of Use too. Be honest, did you even read it before making your first purchase?

But that just goes to my point: I still buy CDs because, among other reasons, they are not governed by ad hoc contracts but by the first-sale doctrine and existing copyright law. That's my choice. If that choice were taken away by including EULAs with CDs, where then could I go? Not iTunes or Amazon. If your answer is "nowhere, you don't have to buy music," thank you, you're acknowledging that all that's required for companies to override consumer rights and first sale is to just attach a contract to everything they sell, because after all, no one needs to buy anything.

To keep it simple: Is it fine/legal/justified/OK in your opinion to bypass or crack the security of software and then broadcast the security keys or the means to circumvent that security?

Depending on the case, but probably not. But if a user uses said keys to hack something he owns and use it for a different purpose that is not piracy, I would have no problem with it and would defend his right to do so. Since the DMCA makes even that illegal, I have problems with it.

 

[darkwing]

PSN seems ok now

 

[Brashnir]

"I don't do those things so I don't care if they are fair or not"

Jeez, that is the last thing I would say ever. If everyone was like that we will be fucked.

most people are like that, which is why we're slowly becoming fucked.

 

[blaccat]

If u dnt like the T&Cs then do not bought the product.

You wouldn't die if u dnt own a PS3.

When u bought a house, u pay council tax and obey the councils rules.

U just cant decide to turn ur house into a skyscraper bcos its urs

These actions taken by Anonymous would further strengthen the argument for stricter laws

A lot of backward logic in this thread.

 

[NullPointer]

Amazon MP3 has a license agreement and Terms of Use too. Be honest, did you even read it before making your first purchase?

But that just goes to my point: I still buy CDs because, among other reasons, they are not governed by ad hoc contracts but by the first-sale doctrine and existing copyright law. That's my choice. If that choice were taken away by including EULAs with CDs, where then could I go? Not iTunes or Amazon. If your answer is "nowhere, you don't have to buy music," thank you, you're acknowledging that all that's required for companies to override consumer rights and first sale is to just attach a contract to everything they sell, because after all, no one needs to buy anything.


Depending on the case, but probably not. But if a user uses said keys to hack something he owns and use it for a different purpose that is not piracy, I would have no problem with it and would defend his right to do so. Since the DMCA makes even that illegal, I have problems with it.

You got me there. I didn't read the terms of service

And i'm not going to say your viewpoint is wrong, but that the issues in Sony v GeoHot aren't so black and white. Reasonable people can disagree I think. But that's all i've got time for tonight. Time for z's.

 

[Haint]

Nope, don't rip DVDs to my PC. I don't watch DVDs on my PC at all. I have, in fact, a massive DVD collection and Blu-Ray collection numbering in the thousands and haven't ripped a single one.

When I was younger (like nearly ten years ago now), I downloaded a few movies illegally and got caught. I had to switch ISPs. That was the consequences for the action. I think those companies were totally in the right in pursuing me and taking action. I take responsibility for what I do.

Were they really tracking movie downloads and threatening ISP's that long ago? 10 years is a long ass time, most people were still on dial up back in 2000/2001. Where were you even downloading them from?

 

[itxaka]

If u dnt like the T&Cs then do not bought the product.

You wouldn't die if u dnt own a PS3.

When u bought a house, u pay council tax and obey the councils rules.

U just cant decide to turn ur house into a skyscraper bcos its urs

These actions taken by Anonymous would further strengthen the argument for stricter laws

A lot of backward logic in this thread.

You just broke the Neogaf T&C. I refer to the FAQ:

Do's:
- Use proper grammar.

So now we will contact the Neogaf legal department in order to process your ban. You cannot appeal this decision as when you signed for an account at Neogaf you signed that T&C.

Good day Sir.

 

[bjb]

Lets face it. They owned Sony. While no one tends to ever take them seriously, they almost always seem to come through. And the damage has been done in this case.

Also their image is subjective. While they might look bad to the many nerdraging here - there's plenty of people shouting their praises (and the associated "lols") on other forums.

 

[LowParry]

Lets face it. They owned Sony. While no one tends to ever take them seriously, they almost always seem to come through. And the damage has been done in this case.

Also their image is subjective. While they might look bad to the many nerdraging here - there's plenty of people shouting their praises (and the associated "lols") on other forums.

They look to be running just fine. Ownage denied.

 

[blaccat]

You just broke the Neogaf T&C. I refer to the FAQ:



So now we will contact the Neogaf legal department in order to process your ban. You cannot appeal this decision as when you signed for an account at Neogaf you signed that T&C.

Good day Sir.

I suggest you check your 'grammar' first

 

[sun-drop]

fucking nerds ..if they cause disruption to my gaming sessions they can go get fucked.

seriously, thats crossing the line imo.

deface a website ..ok. fuck up psn? ...not cool.

 

[bjb]

They look to be running just fine. Ownage denied.

I'm guessing you weren't around earlier when PSN and the website were collectively down?

 

[Dambrosi]

most Americans are like that, which is why the USA's slowly becoming fucked.

Fixed.

Seriously, I'm so glad

Spoiler

a few of

the British public aren't as seemingly sheep-like and passive as Amirox is in this thread. Remember, folks - you can't spell "apathetic" without "pathetic".

Itxaka: haha, nice one mate.

bjb: nobody was "owned" here. "Owned" would be PSN down for a whole week, or everything on the Store suddenly becoming £0.00. This? A minor inconvenience that only overly-invested fangeeks would nerdrage at.

 

[jintek]

Who's self-interest are we supposed to be falling in line with in this thread? I never understand it when a group of intelligent people (like in this thread) can actually commit time and energy arguing the validity or guardrails of corporate legislation. Copyright law in practice, in terms of who and where it's actually successful serves almost exclusively those who need it the least. Especially if we get into the discussion of who is actually able to successfully manipulate the legal system and court apparatus...it's out of reach for those who need it most in regard to copyright I might add.

So who is this thread really arguing for? Are we really busting our balls, wasting valuable time bitching about a bunch of losers DDOSing a website or two, let's get real... Let's get a bit realistic about the scope of the situation. And bringing Geo into it, I'll just say this what Geohot did (and in turn enabled) benefited FAR more people than it hurt...has it really hurt anyone? Or is the gaming community still arguing the irrelevancy of legality/morals concerning filesharing? Because that's what all of it really boils down to. Anyway, end of rant just been a crazy day and saddens me to see so many people towing the company line.

 

[Big Baybee]

I'm guessing you weren't around earlier when PSN and the website were collectively down?

Sony pwned. Derp Derp

 

[jackdoe]

You say something that is pretty intelligent like this...

So who is this thread really arguing for? Are we really busting our balls, wasting valuable time bitching about a bunch of losers DDOSing a website or two, let's get real... Let's get a bit realistic about the scope of the situation. And bringing Geo into it, I'll just say this what Geohot did (and in turn enabled) benefited FAR more people than it hurt...has it really hurt anyone? Or is the gaming community still arguing the irrelevancy of legality/morals concerning filesharing? Because that's what all of it really boils down to. Anyway, end of rant just been a crazy day and saddens me to see so many people towing the company line.

But you earlier said something as completely stupid as this...

Yeah, I'd much rather see an anonymous group deal a heavy real blow to Sony like leaking the NPDRM key, or releasing a 3.60 CFW...something. At least it'd be entertaining and I'd enjoy it, especially the epic forum lulz. But DDOS is pretentious bullshit. Only thing that would impress me regarding DDOS is if they could keep it going for a week straight or something, or cause massive issues for PSN.

So I'm not quite sure how to take your rant.

 

[Slavik81]

This really doesn't help the cause. I'd love to see organized protests.

 

[jintek]

You say something that is pretty intelligent like this...


But you earlier said something as completely stupid as this...

So I'm not quite sure how to take your rant.

It's about entertainment sir, that's all. It'd be far more entertaining for me to watch a bunch of ego-deflated industry huggers whine and cry and make violent replies about "teh hackers". My self-interest is untouched, I don't care if hackers rape and pillage Sony...or if they don't. I have no personal stake in the outcome. All I have at this point is the possibility (small as it may be) for a little entertainment.

In truth, there's a lot of company's (Sony and especially MS included) that deserve to be DDOSed from time to time in my opinion. On the contrary, if that's the height of how hackers can "get back at X or Y", I think that's a sad state of affairs. They should aim higher, or get the fuck out.

 

[LowParry]

I'm guessing you weren't around earlier when PSN and the website were collectively down?

And that hurts Sony in what way? What about those who don't give a shit what goes on online and want to play their games? If anyone, the consumer go "owned" as you put it.

 

[superbank]

Some of the responses here... Gaming Side is weird.

But this:

From the depth of mom's basement I stab at thee!!

Wins. You get a pass, shuri.

 

[googleplex]

That's what the companies say. I don't care. If I buy it it's mine.

What's the difference under copyright law between a game and a music CD? None. So would you be OK if music companies started putting EULAs in CDs saying you're not allowed to rip it to any other format for use in any device besides a CD player?


More assumptions. Where did I say a goddamn thing about open source?

Sorry but you don't and never will own the right to someone else's intellectual property, be it software or artistic unless the creator signs over all rights to said work.

The ideal that as long as you pay money for software you can do with ever you want with it is fundamentally false.

 

[jackdoe]

It's about entertainment sir, that's all. It'd be far more entertaining for me to watch a bunch of ego-deflated industry huggers whine and cry and make violent replies about "teh hackers". My self-interest is untouched, I don't care if hackers rape and pillage Sony...or if they don't. I have no personal stake in the outcome. All I have at this point is the possibility (small as it may be) for a little entertainment.

In truth, there's a lot of company's (Sony and especially MS included) that deserve to be DDOSed from time to time in my opinion. On the contrary, if that's the height of how hackers can "get back at X or Y", I think that's a sad state of affairs. They should aim higher, or get the fuck out.

Okay... So I will not take your rant seriously then. You say that you support Geohot because his hacking hurts no one AND YET you also say you want people to fuck up PSN for a week which would hurt a lot of gamers "just to teach Sony a lesson". Alrighty then.

 

[jintek]

Okay... So I will not take your rant seriously then. You say that you support Geohot because his hacking hurts no one AND YET you also say you want people to fuck up PSN for a week which would hurt a lot of gamers "just to teach Sony a lesson". Alrighty then.

You're making too many assumptions, and also pre-identifying my implications. And you're about half-off, but you know take seriously whatever you want, doesn't bother me.

And I disagree, on the "gamers being hurt without PSN", gamers WILL live a long happy gaming life even if the almighty PSN goes down for a week. But I could be wrong. In any case, since this thread will go on regardless...why not spice it up a little. But for the record, my only implication was it'd be funny (not that I support it as a method), and I also said that DDOSing is a pretty weak way to "teach Sony a lesson".

 

[Hitlersaurus Christ]

Fucking with a criminal cult or a corrupt official is entertaining and a good thing, but taking out PSN because of Sony's legal actions? Kind of dumb. Super really a lot of kinda dumb. I doubt that there's many (if any) of the same people participating in this, though. "Anonymous" isn't exactly a real organization after all, no matter how people try to portray it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Some of the responses here... Gaming Side is weird.

But this:


Wins. You get a pass, shuri.

Nobody got the reference, but it's not actually his joke

 

[superbank]

Nobody got the reference, but it's not actually his joke

Ah, it sounded familiar. The basement bit is a nice touch though.

 

[faceless007]

Sorry but you don't and never will own the right to someone else's intellectual property, be it software or artistic unless the creator signs over all rights to said work.

The ideal that as long as you pay money for software you can do with ever you want with it is fundamentally false.

Why is this false conflation always used in copyright debates? It's not a hard distinction to see. True, I don't have the intellectual property rights to a work but I sure as fuck should get the rights to the physical copy. If I buy a book, obviously I don't own the text, that belongs to the author, but I do own my copy of it which means, yes I can do whatever the fuck I want with it (that doesn't infringe on the author's copyright). If that means sell or a loan it to a friend, I can. If that means tear all the pages out of it and glue them back together in reverse order to create a post-modern hipster art project, I can. But we're supposed to just accept that software is its own magical class of product that deserves a special distinction and none of this applies? Fuck that.

Almost every EULA I've seen says you're not allowed to make any copy of the game at all. A lot of games use copy protection that makes ripping them difficult if not impossible without special (circumventing) software. Except constitutionally, you have a right to backup any software you buy. So tell me again why I should just accept the word of a contract that claims it supercedes fucking copyright law?

 

[etiolate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

Sony's got electrolytes

 

[jintek]

Why is this false conflation always used in copyright debates? It's not a hard distinction to see. True, I don't have the intellectual property rights to a work but I sure as fuck should get the rights to the physical copy. If I buy a book, obviously I don't own the text, that belongs to the author, but I do own my copy of it which means, yes I can do whatever the fuck I want with it (that doesn't infringe on the author's copyright). If that means sell or a loan it to a friend, I can. If that means tear all the pages out of it and glue them back together in reverse order to create a post-modern hipster art project, I can. But we're supposed to just accept that software is its own magical class of product that deserves a special distinction and none of this applies? Fuck that.

Almost every EULA I've seen says you're not allowed to make any copy of the game at all. A lot of games use copy protection that makes ripping them difficult if not impossible without special (circumventing) software. Except constitutionally, you have a right to backup any software you buy. So tell me again why I should just accept the word of a contract that claims it supercedes fucking copyright law?

You know, I've tried to have this exact debate on a multitude of occasions, and it always hits the same wall. People just believe that namely digital media reserves special legal privilege...period. Of course the irony is, if you're on a music forum they don't care about circumventing games, same goes for film buffs.

So it's all biased interests intersecting to basically say w/ one voice our media of choice is entitled to whatever legal/security/contracts placed upon it, and any who oppose our mission are criminal. And then we begin to see the enablers who subscribe to these things come out of the woodwork and make every excuse and every rationalization for it. They base it all on piracy, and more recently "used sales". Beside the fact because in a truly free market, the consumer makes the final decision on whether or not piracy is acceptable to the market, we aren't supposed to exist to supply a market w/ funds...are we? Or is the market purely at the whim of the cultural generation and technology that drives it?

Needless to say, I try not to waste my time w/ these debates. People tend to already have their minds made up about everything.

 

[Shake Appeal]

As a sidenote to what Amir0x was saying, incarcerations for non-violent drug crimes in the US are so out of control that in fifty or one hundred years' time there will be chapters in history books devoted to the negligence, moral apathy, and tacit racism involved on the part of both citizens and government.

If one considers "acting responsibly" to be "abiding by the laws of society", and privileges those laws above all else, nothing ever gets done, and we would be living today under violently oppressive autocratic regimes constantly at war with one another, and Hobbes would have been right.

But hey, that's "idealistic liberal bullshit" we should dump when we turn 17.

This 'hack', meanwhile, is really, really dumb.

 

[blaccat]

Comparing a DVD to a home purchase. My, how far we've come.

I mean, think about it. Are you really be OK with a society in which legally even a goddamn video game makes you sign a contract when you buy it?

If so, congratulations, you've given every single company that manufactures any consumer good a foolproof way to absolve themselves of any liability for anything ever and dictate to you what you can do with it. They just need to stick a license agreement in the box.

Almost every game EULA I've seen includes a provision against modifying or reverse-engineering. That means every single mod ever released (that doesn't use included editing tools) for any such game is a violation. If EULAs are law, that makes it a crime. You OK with that?

You do not completely own something which you did not create, so because it wasn't created by you. You can only license it, I am sure you know this but choose to ignore it.

If you want to OWN your musics and games, feel free to buy the rights to them. If not you are limited to licensing a copy of their property.

If I own the rights to an intellectual property, I believe the law should protect me from license holders reproducing my property in different formats without my permission.

If not my position as the true owner is pointless.

You can say what ever you want about corporations, but these products are ideas of hard working human beings who also have rights.