The only difference between a physical and digital copy of a video game is the format of the license key (on disc vs attached to your account). In either case, you're buying a license key that can be revoked by the manufacturer at any time. A playable game isn't even on the disc any more, since games aren't finished by the master date any more (so you need to have internet access regardless of if it's a disc or digital copy)

At least California is doing something and forcing stores to make it clearer that you're only getting a revokable license rather than actually buying the product: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426

One is the ownership of a digital copy on the same terms as a physical copy. That allows you to resell your copy, lend it to a friend, move it to a different device, retain the use of it even if the seller no longer exists . . . stuff that falls under the first-sale doctrine and other actions that are generally accepted as “okay” and reasonable. That’s what’s being called out here as not existing for most digital copies.

And you still aren't authorized to do that with a "DRM Free" copy (which gets into a mess since those aren't actually DRM Free but...). In large part because there is no mechanism to transfer authorization for updates and so forth. GoG made a cheeky "take that" to Valve when they said they would allow you to transfer a dead relative's account... but even that is a huge mess and had a LOT of fine print at the end. Again, there are exceptions but they are few and far between.

Same with buying Ghostbusters on VHS. There is no DRM to speak of involved. But any teacher who threw it on because they were hungover was technically in violation of the terms of purchase and there were a few medium profile cases where people learned about public performance rights when they were showing "their" copy of a movie or album.

You can make as many arguments as you want. Until those go to a court of law they mean nothing.

However, that isn’t what most people expect to get when they’re purchasing a copy of a media work, regardless of whether it’s digital or physical.

We are specifically talking about expectations versus reality. Which gets back to the reality that even when you bought that CD you were engaging in what was a hell of a lot closer to a "lease" than not.

How IP in general and copyright in particular is handled does really need an overhaul, but that isn’t a problem specific to the digital world—it’s equally applicable to print books, oil paintings, and vinyl records.

Which gets back to the original point that most of those purchases were always "leases" because of how the legal system is set up..

This isn't strictly true because most games do still have a playable version on the disk. What is more is that it's not as straight forward to revoke a disc, especially for passive media and the license is legally transferable due to doctrine of first sale as I understand it.

This isn't strictly true because most games do still have a playable version on the disk. What is more is that it's not as straight forward to revoke a disc, especially for passive media and the license is legally transferable due to doctrine of first sale as I understand it.

That only works after you've found out the developer is a scumbag though

You don’t. You don’t even really own physically purchased digital goods (like BluRays or video games). It’s a great time to be alive folks!

That only works after you've found out the developer is a scumbag though

Easy, keep your money and buy games from devs who don't suck.

Except for the fact that Nintendo is doing exactly that on the switch. Physical games have a digital license embedded in the cartridge itself. In this way Nintendo can stop people from ripping games and sharing the backups with friends. With that said be careful when buying used switch games.

Can I put second hand carts in my switch and play? Yes I can.

This isn't strictly true because most games do still have a playable version on the disk

At least on my Xbox, there's games where it wouldn't let me play them unless some updates were installed. "day one patches" are very common in the video game industry these days.

legally transferable due to doctrine of first sale as I understand it.

The first sale doctrine applies to physical goods. The game companies are moving towards the games always being digital goods, and the disc simply being a physical license key for the digital games. I'm not sure if the doctrine would apply in the same way in this case.

Yes but if the original owner used the game with cheats/hacks/mods or if they cloned it and multiple people used it at the same time then that game cartridge would get flagged by Nintendo and banned. Maybe your Nintendo account gets banned, maybe the console doesn't allow you to play it, or maybe the game doesn't do online features anymore. Point is Nintendo decides what happens to your physical copy moving forward. At that point do you become an accomplice in getting others in trouble by reselling or take the L? After all it's not like the game looks/feels any different despite being a banned game.

It’s a great time to be a pirate

Nope, the game will work regardless of what Nintendo do, though you are right they can kick you off their online platform. That isn't them deciding what happens with your physical copy though that is them deciding who can access their servers for what ever arbitrary reason they decide. In fact if they kick you off, the only games you'll still be able to play are the physical ones.

Dude, physical switch games are encrypted and you have to circumvent this protection in order to play. Such circumvention is illegal by US law (which I don’t like).