> 1. Being pedantic even if you own the medium(cd, cartrige, floppy disk), you still don’t own the software. You just own the license to use it.
Per first-sale doctrine, if a license was included with the original medium, then it's irrevocably transferrable to subsequent buyers, without manufacturer being able to sever it, no?
Which is why SaaS and "cloud features" did all they could to danced around and obscure this.
But the reasons still stand, despite the author's conclusion. I agree with all the downsides of streaming/renting software. That's what it should be called. Even when you buy a digital media that remains hosted on a cloud server, you never really own it. There should be a new word for it.
How about games that require an account in order to play at all? It's not a new concept and has been around for at least 15 years. Additionally, by modern games relying on matchmaking and lobby systems, almost any multiplayer game over the past 5-10 years is unplayable without an internet connection.
Is the argument that Steam is worse than Spotify because a subset of games have got built in self destruct, while Spotify only requires ongoing rent to access that 99¢ song?
I think the self destruct is bad, and requiring 3rd party logins for single player games should not be allowed.
The argument is that platforms like Steam encourage developers to implement vendor lock in features. It's something that's more likely to happen with something like software vs standard media like music.
Platforms like Spotify dont need to because its institutionalised. So I'm not sure its a great argument.
The platform itself will remove everything from you unless you keep paying Taylor Swift every month, and the artists you actually listen to probably don't get anything, unless you only listen to top ten charting songs.
2. So you are pro-Spotify but anti-Steam? All the arguments you gave above against Steam apply to Spotify as well.
Sounds to me you are trying to justify your decision to pirate to yourself.