That's like saying publishers of printed books, zines, and newspapers never sold books, zines, and newspapers.

Narrowing:
1. The right answer in the case of games with a substantial offline experience is to not make the license for the offline portion revocable.
2. The right answer in the case of games without a substantial offline experience is to describe the license as a rental at all times.

All three major console makers require all customers to "agree[] to let them change the terms when you signed up." If a game developer wants to sell a customer an indefinite license that the console maker can't revoke, the developer has no way to do so. This appears to be evidence of a cartel to me. How is it not?

Say I buy an indefinite license to use a video game. Then the game's publisher or the platform's owner unilaterally revokes that license. What do I have to show for having "respect[ed] the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment"?

Title 17, United States Code, reserves specific rights to the owner of a copy. It defines a copy as a physical object in which a work is fixed (17 USC 101).

The owner of a copy of a computer program retains the right to use that copy, including the right to make essential ephemeral copies in RAM, as long as the copy remains readable (17 USC 117).

As I understand it, ownership of a physical object is defined by the personal property laws of the several states.

A "copy" under United States copyright law is any physical object in which a work of authorship is fixed, such as a game cartridge or game disc. The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work enjoys two carveouts, or uses deemed noninfringing. One is reselling that copy (17 USC 109). Another is making private copies essential to the use of a computer program (17 USC 117). These carveouts subsist as long as the copy remains readable. A license through PlayStation Store does not.

This license consists of uses carved out as noninfringing in the copyright law. For video games distributed in physical copies, two carveouts are most salient: exhaustion of the exclusive distribution right with respect to a particular copy after the first sale, and making private copies required to use a computer program, such as ephemerally reproducing the program in RAM. (Under US law, these are 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117. Feel free to describe analogous carveouts in other countries' copyright law.)

What these carveouts have in common is that neither the copyright owner nor a platform gatekeeper can remotely make copies unusable. PlayStation Store doesn't give licensees even this assurance.

The difference is that it's not mass transit. It arguably should have been regulated more though, because and only because it cost The People money to chase after the dead.

Your solutions don't solve anything. e.g. "The department can't evade the bits they're actually able to do" means only that the argument will be over what they are able to do.

It still can be, if you've got a couple hundred bucks.

There's a lot of people here who support nuclear because glowing stuff making power is cool, and for no other reason. They then constructed a shambolic cluster of borrowed bullshit to support their belief, which it doesn't; they're holding it up all on their own, and none of that crap is meaningful at all when we factually don't need nuclear. Maybe we did once, but we sure don't now.

Exactamente. I had friends that got stop-lossed for Iraq. Even if I were morally bankrupt enough to sign up for a four year stint potentially murdering people so that oil companies or Halliburton can make more profit, I wouldn't be dumb enough to believe they wouldn't keep me for longer.

Well, friend, it involves a student loan that I was promised I had a ~3% rate locked in on which is currently only not accruing over 6% because of SAVE which the rapeublicans want to destroy.

If only my Pine64 hadn't killed itself in less than a year, I might trust them to do hardware. I wouldn't buy a raspiphone either.

Crush-roasted is exactly how I like my oligarchs.