if buying isn't owning piracy isn't stealing
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
400 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
1444 readers
6 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wish u could retweet a lemmy comment. Well said.
technically you can since lemmy, kbin, and mastodon all use activitypub :P
How tho. I use the Voyager app for Lemmy (iOS)
you can technically follow lemmy users in mastodon. in megalodon (or whatever your client is), just search for the lemmy handle. their posts are toots and their comments are replies
Not within Lemmy, but if you were on, for example, a federated Mastodon instance it's perfectly possible to boost that comment that would appear like a retweet to Mastodon users.
The Voyager community (I use it too), JUST had a post from the developer that he added a feature to post comments as pictures, but I don't actually know how to do it.
Niiiice, thank you!
welcome to the fediverse. Boost = retweet ;)
You can on /kbin
Fairer words have never been spoken
Absolutely insane.
I can understand extreme cases, like some sort of disputed IP where their contact to sell the content turns out not to be with the actual rights holder, resulting in no longer serving the content (with an unconditional full refund). But past that they should be legally required to host the content until the heat death of the universe.
Yeah this is one of the reasons I've been slowly moving my gaming time over to Steam as they very rarely do stuff like this and if they delist the game, if you've already purchased the game you can still play it 99.99% of time. Sad to see Playstation go down this route.
Unfortunately it’s the same situation on steam. You are only buying licenses to games you don’t actually own it, they can be taken away at any time with no recourse. Steam might be doing good now in this regard but it’s hard to say if it will stay like this forever.
Give it another 10 years, you won’t “own” anything. It’ll be “licensed.” Weird tho. Digital content is endless. But you can’t consume it into extinction; physical things are finite, but we’re like here take it! It’s yours! Call a cop or shoot anyone trying to take it.
Seems backwards to me.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"We sincerely thank you for your continued support."
As in stfu and keep giving us money?
Looks perfectly translated to me
Like.... They're straight up taking it back? No refunding? That is so asinine.
Now THAT is stealing.
"But you only ever owned a usage-license, which we now suspended" strawman argument incoming.
Well duh, then i don't have "buyed" but rented it. Usage of those terms by platforms should be sued as misleading.
And this is why I never “buy” media online. If I can’t own the media and enjoy the content whenever and wherever I want, it’s rented. I may be ok with that, but I never let them claim that it was a sale.
Sadly purchasing a phyical copy still will mean you can't play it due to the required download for most consoles these days.
Hence “and enjoy it whenever and wherever I want.” If they maintain control, it’s not sold. It is, at best, rented.
Fortunately, there are often tools to enforce the first sale doctrine.
Buy it for the convenience and for the good Devs, pirate it after if they try taking it away. You already paid for it
Exactly.
It's much the same as creators in Second Life who don't want to sell in the Opensim metaverse. I get where they're coming from in terms of protecting a recurring revenue stream, but if the customer has already paid for the product once, under first sale doctrine, they have the right to continue using it.
Modern consoles are a scam.
I still like having a console strictly for games, but not for media stuff. Plus since it’s an Xbox, you can subscribe to Game Pass and treat every game as a rental.
That doesn’t do anything to help game preservation though, which sucks. But between the sheer volume of games and the “every game is a rental” attitude, I treat new games as a one-time experience that I probably won’t care about returning to.
Fortunately though, the games I care most about having access to forever are easily backed up and can be played with an emulator if necessary.
Fucking assholes. This is why piracy is justifiable, and in some cases, even necessary.
God, I hope these bastards get sued 'cause little doubt they won't be refunding the poor schmos who've just been robbed of their property.
I'm sure they covered this in the terms of service that they know no one ever reads.
In many countries that wont work. The Terms of service need to only include reasonable and expectable clauses, as they are not negotionable.
And "purchase doesnt mean ownership, we take it from you anytime we want" is neither reasonable nor expectable.
Also this should run under criminal fraud imo. The customers were deliberately deceived by the term "purchase" into believing they would be granted ownership.
To be fair, Sony might go for that. This is incredibly embarrassing for them as well, and it does erode the trust in their service which is really important for a marketplace like this. Sony will be handing out coupons probably, but this is still damage to their brand.
I think when this happens you DO get a refund, (usually a coupon for the same service, but still). This is a situation where villanizing Sony would be, but not necessarily correct. Obviously they have no interest to remove previously purchased content from user libraries. (like this).
So the question is, on what possible grounds can a company change licensing AFTER sales have been made. This is the same fucking mess as with the soundtrack being retroactively removed from GTAIV. How is this legal?
A coupon for the same service is not and does not resemble a refund.
Yes, villainizing them is entirely correct. If they sold the license 100 years ago and stopped providing it, they should be legally liable for a 100% refund of the purchase price, plus interest. If they fucked up their contracts in a manner in which they aren't able to serve the content to purchasers until the end of the time, it's entirely their own problem.
When companies fight regulations they use statements THIS unreasonable to fight better legislation, for framing everyone who supports better regulation, as completely unreasonable whining anti capitalistic bigots, who just want regulation that makes conducting any business basically impossible.
With this logic, if your DVD rots, does the company who originally released the DVD owe you a full refund plus interest?
No, backing it up is your obligation.
A digital purchase means they owe you access, in the format your purchased, as long as they exist. Nothing short of that can possibly be acceptable if there is any copy protection at all.
almost like "purchasing" it was the real crime.
Whoever wrote that list probably isn't being paid enough.
That's 1318 items, according to that table, counting by seasons. Insane.
This is why i hate digital only and no more game disc, also battlepass and dlc.
you own nothing but pays the full price for the permission to play and they cant remove access at any time.-
Marvel vs capcom 2 its my favorite game and they removed from store, i know is about licensing but they will not come to my house for the DVD Disc right?
sony is going to steal
Did anyone actually read the link? Everyone in the thread is talking like they pulled video games. They literally only pulled Disney TV content from like 20 years ago. Now of course that's still crappy but stuff like this has happened for TV content before and it won't be the last time this happens.
We can freak out when they actually do this to video games and not some 20 year old awful reality TV content no one watched anyway.
Nobody is mentioning TV Show vs video game because there is no difference.
Taking away any content a user has paid for is unacceptable without a full refund at absolute minimum.
The point is if they do it for this there is no reason they wouldn't do it to other forms of media. Youre either introducing a strawman argument or missing the point
Scrolling through the list I can't believe that people actually watch that shit, let alone pay for it.
It's all the kind of crap that people leave used to leave on in the background and to get bombarded with 4 sets of adverts an hour. The direct result of needing to fill 200 channels as cheaply as possible.
Refunding everyone would probably cost Sony less than a million. I'd wager some of those shows nobody has ever purchased.
This has actually always been my reason for piracy. I've always been able to afford games, thankfully, so I've used piracy as a means of demoing games as demos became more and more rare and more commonly and more importantly I've used piracy as a means of preserving games. I have no problems paying for a game if I can also keep it indefinitely and play it forever, and thanks to piracy that is actually possible.