imagine if, for instance, you buy a video game through a digital distributor like steam but then the store goes out of business and no longer exists to serve you a copy or recognize the sale, but on this massively distributed and decentralized database you can prove that you did indeed compensate the developers of that software and thereby legally acquire entitlement to access it in accordance with the end user license agreement.

What you're arguing for is forcing the distributor to distribute in perpetuity, which has nothing to do with how you show ownership of your license.

Right now, I can show steam I've purchased, say Delistopolis, and they will agree I am indeed perfectly allowed to have and play it. But they are not required to provide me with a copy.

A blockchain system will not solve this.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

no. you're putting words in my mouth. if the distributor wants to stop distributing they can.

they can take down their servers, they can even cease to be, but it would no longer affect the availability of product they sold.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then I don't think I understand you. Are you suggesting we put millions of full games on a bloxkchain?

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Only the keys need to be stored cryptographically, really, because the game files themselves are nigh inevitably available on torrenting networks. it's inevitable that people are going to rip backups of all game files for the delicious delights of datamining and as long as enough of them will seed them (which shouldn't be a problem as long as there's any INTEREST in a game existing...) that availability never arises as an issue. And if it's not popular enough to put there, it'll probably end up on The Internet Archive.

Would be nice if there were an infrastructural 'backup of last resort' such as the library of congress, which is something the LoC already does for other audiovisual media. It'd just be nice if that service were extended to software.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So more of a blockchain KMS then? I don't see how you could construct such a thing.

The requirements of allowing a publisher control of their game for some time (for example, allowing them to retract some keys when violating the EULA, but not all keys when "unpublishing" a game), but also allowing people to resell keys, which are somehow publically accesible but only for the legit owner, and the owner has to allow third-party acces without publically sharing a private key.

This is the age-old identity problem with blockchain. It's all well and good that Bob's name is written on a smart contract, but that doesn't remove the issue with how to identify Bob.