You could revisit this thread again when you're feeling a little less negative... and notice my question mark...
I was asking about your views on ownership, whether they're really as black & white as your post suggests. I don't think that that's the same as trying to kill an argument?

"fantics", i.e.e those people who can not read anything without frotthing at the mouth... the joke is still there, but so many people here have blinders on so they do not see it....

"claiming hitler" - i.e. pulling the argument into a position which is so grand as they can not argue against it, and kills it. other example i used was just claiming entropy, making all points meaningless.

You can not define "ownership", it is a term which is at the same time too simple and too elusive at the same time. It is a completly arbituary and and every single culture, legal system, customes, econmoic models and what-ever have their own version of what "ownership" entails. It is a completel argument stopper, same as claiing I ma hitler, and therfore all arguments I pull are void.... because hitler said it
my views of ownership currently follow the British legal system, as this is where I now live

This has been done to death over and over, but the truth is they are actually worded differently in legal terms:-

Steam Subcriber Agreement - You are a "subscriber" to the client for which any "subscription" (game) bought through it is an indirect privilege. You never actually agree to own or use any "subscription" (game) directly outside of that client even if you can get some of them to run like that ("the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions.") In short, if you ever lose access to / disagree with future EULA changes required to use the client, you lose your legal rights to all your "subscriptions" even without any game being revoked by the licenser / publisher.

GOG User Agreement - You do actually own GOG "content" directly (required for continued usage of offline installers post-GOG). This is literally spelled out in Section 17.3. (Fun fact - "subscriber" and "subscription" appear 144x times in the Steam "subscriber" agreement, and 0x times in GOG's User Agreement - "your content" is used instead and the legal right to use isn't gated behind Galaxy in any similar way).

tl:dr - They may both involve "licensed" games but GOG's "content" (offline installers at least) are actually directly purchased and owned by you whilst Steam's "subscriptions" are granted as a secondary privilege of continued use of the Steam client. This is how they are legally worded in both of their EULA's and obviously has different implications for having a legal right to your content in the event the stores close / you don't' want to use a client as a completely separate issue to the individual publisher of the game revoking anything.

Such ownership has never existed, not in any democratic society anyway. (If someone starts about politics, I'm out.)

well, then don't start it....

(and yes, that was another joke)

because we all know that what the sellers states on their blurbs and EULA's trumps the legal systems

Well, I guess he is only making a hard attack against a very common and sterile relativism of everything. Because It use to make any debate about things completely broken and empty.

But well, whatever. Not my business :)

AB2012... are you me?

Well, I'm out of here. so only to explain the joke and the Freudian slip that started this, and I now do so regrett ever making.

Go back to post 1221 (https://www.gog.com/forum/general/how_many_of_you_actually_boycott_steam_games/post1221)

"never bought their rentalware. i dont even have account there and never had"

I found it funny as you either buy a product, or you rent a rental. So the slip here is incogruity of these two terms.

it should be either "rent their rentalware" or "buy their games".

so it was a slip there. I found it funny. I promise I will not post anything like this again, it is not worth it.

i keep forgetting what kind of forum this is these days....

Now you're talking! The whole thing is complex, region-relative, and most legal systems haven't even caught up with the online world.

I'm not saying that at all. What i was saying is that "I didn't experience something, so i don't understand the mechanism behind it."

My mistake! "I don't understand..." is often (mis)used as an 'excuse' to make a point.

You brought the subject up that "they are the same" when the EULA's are clearly worded very differently and the item being purchased / subscribed to is legally structured differently. EULA's which break the law certainly get thrown out. Eg, buying a coffee table with a EULA "do not resell" does not overrule various national First Sale Doctrine laws that give a right to resell. A digital service openly advertised as a "subscription" from the start for which you fully agree to not use under certain conditions does not break the same law though simply because the subscription payments are like one-off purchases instead of Netflix style monthly payments. If Valve say "you have no legal rights to your 'subscribed' games post Valve", that's not an "unfair contract" at all if the client is required and is entirely legally valid. It sounds like you half want to argue the issue (that you brought up) without addressing it and are ending up dismissing everything you don't like to hear with one liners and bizarre Hitler comments is getting more than a little weird to be honest...

Great minds think alike :-D

Isn't there a lawsuit (Still in progress? Was it in France?) that disagrees with Valve being a subscription service?

I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of Nigerians have tried to get their scam legalized. After all, their 'service' made people happy (they're family to royalty!) for a certain amount of time (until they realize that their money's gone). :-P

It was France yes (and the lawsuit was mostly about reselling digital games), but it was appealed and until it's ruled one way or another Steam's EULA does what it says. And even then the ruling will probably only apply to France / EU where it was ruled.

The EU is a huge market, for any company. I wouldn't underestimate the consequences IF Valve would lose this one. It is a good example of the/a legal system trying to catch up with the online world.
And AFAIK, it's not about the EULA but about the active prevention of reselling. But I could be wrong. (edit: I'm wrong, it's about the "Subscriber Agreement" (which is not the same as an EULA, I think).