Usus, abusus, fructus: what "owning" a game should really mean

Civil law, inherited from Roman law, defines full ownership through three attributes: usus, fructus and abusus. Setting them against dematerialised video games is enlightening: it lets us measure precisely what a licence leaves you, and what it takes away.

The three attributes of ownership

• Usus, the right to use the property: here, to play the game.
• Fructus, the right to draw its fruits: for instance monetising your practice (streaming, reselling items), or more simply enjoying everything the game produces.
• Abusus, the right to dispose of it: reselling it, giving it away, bequeathing it, or even destroying it.

To be a full owner is to hold all three. This is what you have over a purchased object: a book, a piece of furniture, a record.

What the licence leaves you

For a dematerialised game, publishers' CGU state that you are not buying the game but a licence. In concrete terms:

• Usus is conditional: you can play, but only as long as the servers are running, as long as your account exists, as long as the game stays in the catalogue.
• Fructus is restricted: commercial use (streaming, content) is often subject to authorisation.
• Abusus is removed: no resale, no transfer, no bequest. Worse still, some terms require you to destroy your copies at the end of the licence.

In other words, the licence grants you only a degraded usus, cuts back the fructus and erases the abusus. You do not become the owner of the game itself: you have only conditional, revocable access, a far cry from full ownership.

The demand is not to become the "owner" of a game's code, which would make no sense. It is to obtain an honest licence: durable, transferable, and one that cannot be turned against you.

Further reading: unfair terms in game CGU.

Official references

• Directive 93/13/EEC, unfair terms (EUR-Lex)
• Directive (EU) 2019/770, digital content and services (EUR-Lex)