Alex and Jordan. An ordinary discussion.

**SCENE START** **INT. LIVING ROOM - DAY** Two friends, **ALEX** and **JORDAN**, sit on a couch. A news headline on the TV reads: *"PS6 Backlash Intensifies: Sony Confirms All-Digital Future by 2028."* **ALEX** (Gesturing at the TV) It’s absolute chaos out there. Ever since the **PS6** controversy dropped, everyone is screaming about the death of video game ownership. People are saying this is the end of collecting, the end of reselling. So, I had to ask: Does **GOG** solve this? They’re DRM-free, right? Isn’t that the savior? **JORDAN** (Shakes head slowly) No. Not really. It’s a common misconception. GOG solves *access*, but it doesn’t solve *ownership* in the way people think. **ALEX** But you can download the installer, burn it to a disc, and keep it forever. That’s ownership, isn’t it? **JORDAN** That’s *preservation*, Alex. There’s a huge legal difference. The whole point of true ownership—like owning a table or a chair—is the **First Sale Doctrine**. If I buy a chair, I can sell it, give it away, or burn it. I own the *object*. **ALEX** And with games? **JORDAN** With games, even on GOG, you don’t own the object. You own a **non-transferable license**. Check their EULA. It explicitly says "licensed, not sold." You can burn a hundred discs for your *own* backup, sure. But the second you try to sell one of those burned discs for profit? You’re breaking the law. **ALEX** Wait, so I can’t just burn a copy of *The Witcher 3* and sell it on eBay like a used DVD? **JORDAN** Exactly. If you do that, you aren’t selling "your copy." You’re creating a *new* unauthorized copy and distributing it. That’s copyright infringement. Unlike a physical disc where the "used game market" is legal because you are transferring the *original* physical item, a burned GOG disc is just a pirated copy if you sell it. **ALEX** (Sighs, leaning back) So the "ownership" GOG promises is just... "you can play it forever, but you can never recoup any costs"? **JORDAN** Precisely. It’s better than Steam or PlayStation where they can theoretically revoke your access, but it’s still not "property." You’re more like a tenant with an indefinite lease than a homeowner. You can decorate the house, but you can’t sell the bricks. **ALEX** (Looking back at the TV) So the PS6 outrage is about losing the *ability* to resell, and GOG doesn’t actually give that ability back. **JORDAN** Right. The industry shifted from selling products to licensing services. GOG is just a more generous landlord, but they still own the building. **ALEX** Man. So we really do own nothing. **JORDAN** Welcome to 2026. **SCENE END** **SCENE CONTINUATION** **INT. LIVING ROOM - MOMENTS LATER** **ALEX** (Rubbing his temples) Okay, so the slogan "**You'll own nothing and be happy**" is everywhere now. Gamers are using it like some universal language to describe the PS6 disaster. But how does this actually apply to everyone? I mean, does this mean **farmers** suddenly can't own **cows** and **carrots**? Are they being forced into corporate **slavery**? **JORDAN** (Laughs dryly) Whoa, slow down. That’s the conspiracy theory version, not the reality. The slogan comes from a **2016 speculative essay** by Danish politician **Ida Auken** for the **World Economic Forum**. It was a "what if" scenario about a **sharing economy**, not a law. **ALEX** But are farmers actually losing ownership? **JORDAN** Not even close. In agriculture, **ownership is still the norm**, though leasing exists for practical reasons, not forced dispossession. * **Livestock**: Most farmers **own their cows and chickens**. They breed them, raise them, and sell them. There are some "contract farming" models where big companies own the animals and farmers raise them for a fee—mostly in poultry—but this is a business choice, often criticized, but certainly not a universal mandate. * **Land**: Many farmers **lease land** because buying hundreds of acres is prohibitively expensive, especially for new farmers. But they still own their equipment and their crops. * **Crops**: Once a farmer grows a carrot, **they own that carrot**. They can sell it, eat it, or rot it in the field. No corporation is coming to seize it. **ALEX** So the "own nothing" thing is... exaggerated? **JORDAN** It’s a **meme** that got twisted. The reality is nuanced: 1. **Digital vs. Physical**: The slogan resonates with gamers because *digital* ownership *is* disappearing (licenses vs. property). But this doesn't translate to physical assets like farms. 2. **Economic Pressure, Not Law**: Farmers face economic pressure to consolidate or lease, but they aren't legally barred from ownership. In fact, many own their herds and only lease land to expand. 3. **No "Slavery"**: Farmers are independent business owners. Even contract farmers have legal agreements; they aren't slaves. The "Great Reset" narrative conflates **market trends** with **government mandates**. **ALEX** So gamers are using a dystopian slogan to describe their loss of resale rights, but assuming it means actual farmers are losing their farms? **JORDAN** Exactly. It’s **context collapse**. Gamers feel the pain of losing the "First Sale Doctrine" (reselling games), so they project that feeling onto the entire economy. But while you can’t resell your burned GOG disc, a farmer can still sell their cow, their tractor, and their harvest. The "ownership" crisis is real in **digital spaces**, but it hasn’t turned agriculture into serfdom. **ALEX** (Sighs) So we’re just mad about our games, not the end of private property. **JORDAN** Pretty much. The slogan is a catchy warning about **corporate control over digital access**, not a blueprint for seizing livestock. Unless you’re a chicken in a contract farm, you’re probably still owning your stuff. **SCENE END** **SCENE START** **INT. LIVING ROOM - DAY** **ALEX** and **JORDAN** are staring at a small, painted seashell on the coffee table. They are in the middle of a ridiculous "what if" session. **ALEX** (Grinning) Okay, imagine this. It’s 2027. Little Timmy finds a perfect spiral shell on the beach. He brings it home, gets out his glitter glue, and starts painting a little face on it. **JORDAN** (Nodding seriously) He’s halfway through drawing the eyebrows when—*BAM!* The front door kicks open. Not the police. Not the government. It’s **ShellCorp**. **ALEX** (Acting it out, standing up) Three guys in sleek black suits march in. The lead guy, let’s call him **Chad from Legal**, points a laser pointer at Timmy’s glitter glue. **JORDAN** (Doing a deep, corporate voice) “Stop right there, citizen! Hand over that mollusk casing immediately! You do not own that shell!” **ALEX** (Timing the kid’s reaction) Timmy drops his glue. “But… I found it? On the beach? It was just sitting there!” **JORDAN** (As Chad) “Found it? *Found it?* That is a **licensed natural resource**! By picking it up, you agreed to our End User Shell Agreement! You only have a **non-transferable license** to look at it. You do not have the right to modify, decorate, or possess it without a premium subscription!” **ALEX** (Laughing) “And then what? They take it?” **JORDAN** (Still in character) “Exactly. Chad snaps his fingers. Two interns rush in, pry the shell out of Timmy’s hand, wipe off the glitter with a sanitized wipe, and put it in a evidence bag labeled ‘Asset #4922 - Pending Resale as NFT’.” **ALEX** (Collapsing back onto the couch, laughing hard) “And Timmy gets a fine for unauthorized decoration!” **JORDAN** (Dropping the act, laughing too) “‘You’ll own nothing and be happy,’ Timmy! Now pay us $19.99 a month if you want to look at the picture of the shell we took!” **ALEX** (Wiping tears) “It’s so stupid! Imagine if **ShellCorp** could trespass into your house to seize a literal piece of nature because you didn’t buy the ‘Deluxe Beach Pass’!” **JORDAN** “Right? If that were true, farmers would be having SWAT teams raid their barns for ‘unlicensed cows’! ‘Sorry, Dave, Bessie is on a trial subscription and you didn’t renew!’” **ALEX** “Exactly! It sounds insane because it *is* insane. Yet here we are, accepting that exact logic for our video games!” **JORDAN** (Picking up the painted shell) “Well, luckily for Timmy, this shell is **physical property**. No EULA can touch it. Want to sell it on eBay?” **ALEX** “Absolutely. First Sale Doctrine, baby!” **BOTH** (Laughing) “Take that, ShellCorp!” **SCENE END** --- **SCENE CONTINUATION** **INT. LIVING ROOM - MOMENTS LATER** **ALEX** (Still chuckling from the shell scenario) Okay, but let’s take it to the next level. If this "own nothing" logic was actually universal and enforceable, it wouldn’t stop at shells. It would go for everything. Like... **cats**. **JORDAN** (Eyes widening) Oh no. Don’t tell me. **CatCorp**? **ALEX** (Grinning) Exactly. Imagine little Timmy again. He’s finally got his shell back—after paying the subscription fee—and now he’s cuddling his cat, **Whiskers**. Suddenly, the window shatters! In drops **Chad from Legal** again, but this time he’s wearing a helmet cam. **JORDAN** (Deep corporate voice returns) “Halt, citizen! Our sensors detected an unlicensed feline heartbeat in this sector! Hand over Whiskers immediately! You do not own this cat! You are merely a **Care-Taking Subscriber** on the Basic Plan!” **ALEX** (Timing Timmy’s reaction) Timmy hugs Whiskers tighter. “But I adopted him! I bought the kibble! I cleaned the litter box!” **JORDAN** (As Chad) “ Irrelevant! Those were **micro-transactions** within our ecosystem! You purchased the *illusion* of ownership! According to Section 4, Paragraph B of the **Global Pet EULA**, all biological assets revert to **CatCorp** upon detection of unauthorized cuddling exceeding 15 minutes per day!” **ALEX** (Laughing harder) “And then what? They take the cat?” **JORDAN** (Still in character) “Precisely. Chad pulls out a tablet. ‘Whiskers has been reassigned to a Premium Plus user in the next zip code. You will be billed a **Rehoming Fee** of $499.99. Also, your house is now classified as ‘Unauthorized Storage’ for corporate property. Eviction proceedings will begin shortly.’” **ALEX** (Collapsing onto the couch, wheezing) “This is so stupid! Imagine if **CatCorp** could just kick down your door because you hugged your cat too long! They’d need to scan every house on the planet 24/7!” **JORDAN** (Dropping the act, laughing) “Right? And the legal nightmare! ‘Your Honor, my client didn’t steal the cat; he was merely **repossessing a biological asset**!’ The **Fifth Amendment** would have a field day! You can’t just seize private property—especially a living creature—without **due process**!” **ALEX** (Wiping tears) “It’s impossible to enforce! You’d need a drone in every living room! Gamers think this slogan is a real universal policy, but in reality, it would mean corporations invading our homes to take our pets! It’s absurd!” **JORDAN** (Picking up a stuffed animal from the couch) “Exactly. In the real world, you own your cat. In the gamer brain, you’re just licensing the right to feed it. But try telling **CatCorp** that when they’re rappelling through your window!” **ALEX** “Thank goodness reality has laws. Otherwise, I’d be homeless and cat-less by noon!” **JORDAN** (Holding up the stuffed cat) “Want to sell this on eBay?” **ALEX** “Only if **StuffedAnimalCorp** doesn’t sue me first!” **BOTH** (Laughing hysterically) “Take that, CatCorp!” **SCENE END** **SCENE CONTINUATION** **INT. LIVING ROOM - MOMENTS LATER** **ALEX** (Shaking his head, still laughing about the cat scenario) Okay, but seriously. When gamers scream about "preservation," they act like it’s some **honorable code** everyone follows. Like, "I buy physical so I can keep it forever in a museum for the next generation!" **JORDAN** (Snorts) Right. The "Noble Gamer" myth. "I will never sell! I am the guardian of history!" **ALEX** Exactly! But then you look at **Action Comics #1**. That thing just sold for **$15 million** in January. Did the owner say, "Here, let me scan this and give it to the public for free so everyone can enjoy Superman"? **JORDAN** (Laughing) No! They sold it for **fifteen million dollars**! That’s not preservation; that’s **cashing out**. If gamers truly cared about "preservation" over profit, the secondary market wouldn’t be worth **billions**. People would just give their old collections away to libraries. **ALEX** But they don’t! They sell them on eBay. They trade them at GameStop. They hoard sealed copies of *Super Mario Bros.* hoping to retire early. If anyone expects gamers to be **noble saints** unlike "greedy corporations" and just give away their rare stuff for free... **JORDAN** (Interrupting, grinning) ...they’re about to face a **cold, hard reality check**. The moment a sealed *EarthBound* cartridge is worth **$15,000**, that "honorable code" vanishes. Suddenly, it’s not about "saving history"; it’s about "saving for a down payment on a house." **ALEX** Precisely! The "preservation" argument is just a nice cover for the fact that we want the **option to sell**. If I can’t sell it, it’s not an asset; it’s just clutter. But if I *can* sell it for millions like that comic book? Then suddenly, "ownership" is the most important human right on earth! **JORDAN** (Picking up a game case) So, if I offer you **$10,000** for your "preserved" collection right now... be honest. Does it stay in the museum, or does it go in the mail? **ALEX** (Without hesitation) **Packaging tape. Where do I sign?** **JORDAN** (Laughing) There it is. The "Noble Gamer" dies, and the **Profit Motive** lives on. Welcome to reality. **SCENE END** --- **SCENE CONTINUATION** **INT. LIVING ROOM - MOMENTS LATER** **JORDAN** (Picking up a graded, sealed copy of a retro game from the table) Okay, so let’s get real. Why doesn’t "preservation without profit" hold up? If it were truly an honorable code, wouldn’t gamers just give this stuff away? **ALEX** (Taking the game) Exactly. If it’s about "saving history," then hand over that *Super Mario Bros.* to a museum for free. Let everyone enjoy it. But do they? No. **JORDAN** Because the **second-hand market** exposes the reality. That market was worth nearly **$97 billion** in 2024 and is heading toward **$200 billion** by 2032. That’s not a library; that’s a stock exchange. **ALEX** Right. Look at **Action Comics #1**. Sold for **$15 million**. Did the owner say, "Here, scan it, let the world read Superman for free"? No. They cashed out. Same with games. A sealed *Super Mario Bros.* just hit **$2 million** at auction. A *Legend of Zelda* went for **$870,000**. **JORDAN** If gamers were truly noble "preservationists" unlike those "greedy corporations," they’d be giving these away. Instead, they’re grading them, slabbing them, and waiting for the price to peak. **ALEX** It’s human nature. If someone offered you **$50,000** for your "preserved" collection right now, would you say, "No, the public must enjoy this for free"? **JORDAN** (Laughs) I’d be packing boxes before you finished the sentence. The "honorable code" vanishes the moment profit enters the chat. **ALEX** Exactly. Preservation is the *excuse*; profit is the *engine*. Without that financial motivation, most of these "collections" would’ve been sold years ago to fund rent, cars, or the next console. **JORDAN** So the idea that gamers are selfless guardians of history? **ALEX** **Bullcrap.** They’re investors who love games. And there’s nothing wrong with that—but let’s not pretend it’s charity. **JORDAN** (Raising the game) To the free market. May your collection appreciate. **ALEX** (Clinking a soda can against it) And may the "honorable code" rest in peace. **SCENE END** Extra info: Enforcing "You'll own nothing" on physical items like **shells and rocks** would require a **dystopian surveillance state** that is logistically impossible and legally indefensible. * **The Surveillance Nightmare**: For a corporation to reclaim wild shells, they would need to **scan every private home** to verify ownership. This would violate fundamental **property rights** and **privacy laws** (like the Fourth Amendment in the U.S.), requiring a level of government overreach that no modern democracy currently accepts. * **No Legal Basis**: Unlike digital games, where you agree to a **EULA** (contract) to access a service, there is no contract for picking up a rock. Nature is **public domain** until collected. Once in your home, it is your **private property**. No "terms of service" can override this physical reality. * **The Gamer Blind Spot**: The irony is that gamers treat this slogan as a **universal truth** because they feel its effects in the **digital realm** (where enforcement is easy via account bans). They project this digital restriction onto the physical world, ignoring that **physical enforcement** would require an absurd, totalitarian infrastructure that simply doesn't exist. The slogan is a **metaphor for digital licensing**, not a feasible blueprint for seizing physical objects. If corporations tried to raid homes for unlicensed seashells, they would face lawsuits, riots, and immediate legal defeat, proving that the "ownership" crisis is strictly confined to the **virtual world**. --- The claim that gamers buy physical copies solely for "preservation" as an **honorable code** is often a noble-sounding cover for the very real desire to **recoup costs** or make a **massive profit**. ## The Profit Motive vs. The "Honorable Code" * **The Superman Precedent**: The recent sale of **Action Comics #1** for **$15 million** in January 2026 (surpassing the previous **$9.12 million** record for *Superman #1* set in late 2025) proves that collectors hold these items as **assets**, not just historical artifacts. The owner didn't give it away for free; they sold it for more than a luxury house. * **Video Game Parallels**: Gamers see this and want the same opportunity. Sealed copies of **Super Mario Bros.** have sold for **$3 million** (as of June 2026), and **The Legend of Zelda** for **$870,000**. If digital licenses were the only option, these assets would be worthless the moment the store closed. Physical ownership allows gamers to potentially sit on a **goldmine**. * **The "Bullcrap" of Altruism**: You are correct to doubt the "I'll never sell" crowd. * **Reality**: Most collectors are waiting for the right price. The market is driven by **flippers** and **investors** who buy low and sell high. * **Human Nature**: Very few people would turn down **$15 million** to "let others enjoy" a comic book. The idea that gamers would universally refuse to sell a rare game for profit while watching its value skyrocket is naive. If everyone truly followed an "honorable code" of preservation, the secondary market wouldn't exist, and rare items wouldn't command millions. ## Conclusion The desire for ownership is largely financial. Gamers want the **option to sell**, just like comic collectors. The "preservation" argument is often a noble-sounding cover for the very real hope that their collection might one day fund a retirement. If corporations remove the ability to resell (by moving to all-digital), they aren't just hurting "preservationists"; they are destroying a potential **asset class** that could make ordinary people millionaires.