Even Google was giving people full refunds for all games that were bought on Stadia when they gave up on that. I can’t imagine that the total refunds would even be that bad for Sony given the increases they made for PSN prices. Would at least come across as at least pretending to “do right” to keep some level of trust from the people that have been buying non-game media from them. It would all be just a PR thing with some loss of current money for future money. Maybe even just offer a free amount of credit for getting some shows/movies from the Sony owned studios.
But since Sony is currently the number one, they will keep on their fuck shit until Microsoft or Nintendo are able to pull some big push. Playstation really only does kind of cool shit for customers when they aren’t in the lead.
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.
Kinda, but its not black and white. For a start steam has a much longer track record of nearly 20 years not doing this, I’ve heard of them de-listing games and not allowing them to be sold any more but never of revoking games that have been sold. Secondly there are many games on steam that stream cant just revoke, games that use no DRM or DRM that isnt integrated into steamworks they cant just delete if you back it up.
But that being said there is the possibility of something like this happening on steam, which is why I’m glad there is still an active game piracy scene even if I dont use it any more.
I dont have one, but I’m pretty sure you can drop to a desktop that you can do whatever you want with the files on the system just like any other linux distro.
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.
"Piracy isn't stealing" doesn't require a qualifier. It's objectively a separate, lesser crime. That correlation is just the result of effective, aggressive marketing that conflates the two. It was so effective that everyone misremembers the "you wouldn't steal a car" ad.
Thanks for that trip down memory lane. I was just a child when I saw that, and my first thought was “but… But when I steal from someone, they don’t have it anymore. If I download it, they still have it”
As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library.
We sincerely thank you for your continued support.
I wonder if anywhere in the “purchase” terms they included “while Sony holds the license to distribute.”
I hate that “purchases” people make are restricted per platform. If I “purchase” a specific title it should be available on any and all platforms that serve that content. No one should be asked to purchase it on Sony. Apple, Netflix, Amazon, or whatever other shitty streaming service comes out.
As much as I think nfts are fucking retarded, this could be one of the few cases where that stupid digital receipt might make sense.
My understanding was this was the actual intended use case for NFTs. To allow you to properly own a digital item. The fact that it got applied to a stupid fad right out the gate doesn’t change the fact that it should actually be used to allow us to own things again.
NFTs don't solve the actual problem, which is that paying money doesn't legally come with a warranty for accessability of the thing you bought. The law should guarantee the right to access anything purchased or marketed similarly for a given period of years with the right to either a Refund or a DRM free download option if said access is no longer offered for any reason, and mandatory cultural preservation of said media as a precondition to legally profit off of it or enforce copyright using the court system
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sony kind of has their hands tied on this one. The shows they’re delisting (or are not able to relicense) kind of get to take their IP off of the system, no?
If they didn’t have a licence to host it in perpetuity, they shouldn’t have sold it in the first place.
Yes, they should pull it if they legally have to. That’s following the law. However, they should refund consumers in full or ensure that they continue to have the media without restrictions.
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.
Copying information is a nonrivalrous activity. To steal inherently requires the owner to be deprived of a thing, and copying does not deprive an owner of a thing. Copying therefore cannot really in “stealing.”
The industry argument for that is “you’re stealing our potential revenue”. I personally subscribe to one streaming service. That’s it. If what I want to watch isn’t on that, I hoist the anchor and set sail.
The predictable way that video streaming services became content islands and actually a worse user experience than cable really shows how the industry would rather provide worse experience and cash grab than attract more customers naturally. By contrast, I can subscribe to one music service, and listen to literally every artist I can possibly want to. As soon as video streaming does that (at a reasonable price), piracy for video will plummet like it did for music.
Within reason, yeah. If the video industry came out with a platform that had all you can stream and all the content in one place, but wanted $150/month for it, that would be a pricing problem. My ceiling is more like $40-50/month.
Which is ridiculous. It’s like suing someone for tapping you on the shoulder while you’re deep in thought, claiming that you almost came up with a great invention but their interference meant you lost your train of thought. Therefore, by tapping you on the shoulder, they owe you millions of dollars of lost potential revenue from that invention.
In addition, you have to consider whether they’re morally justified in receiving that revenue. Say someone manages to bribe the government so that they get paid $1 every time someone says “shazam”. If you say “shazam” and don’t pay them, they lose $1 in potential revenue. But, is this potential revenue that they are morally justified in collecting? Copyright law is just as ridiculous as “shazam” law. In both cases the government came up with a rule that allows someone to collect revenue simply because the government says so.
IMO the entertainment industry has ridiculously warped copyright. It used to be that copyright was a 14 year term, renewable for another 14 years if the author was alive. Under that rule, Forrest Gump would just have had its copyright expire. That seems pretty reasonable. It cost them $55 million to produce, and it brought in $678 million, it’s probably mostly done making money for them. Time for their rights to expire, right? Nope, they get to keep their monopoly until 2114. It’s fucking ludicrous.
Copyright is supposed to be a balance between what’s good for people creating something, and the general public. The creator is given a short-term monopoly as an incentive to create, that’s how they benefit. The public benefits because after a short time that creation becomes public. The alternative is no copyright, where creators need to be paid up-front by someone like a patron, and what they create becomes public immediately. The patronage system is responsible for all kinds of magnificent art like most classical music, the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. The argument for copyright is that the patronage system wasn’t good enough, and the public could benefit even more by allowing a short monopoly for the creator. But, with the lobbying of the entertainment cartel, the public benefit is far worse. You now still effectively have the patronage system controlling what art gets made (the entertainment cartel), they then also keep that art from the public for more than a century.
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.
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.
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
See the pinned post in !communityPromo for some tips on finding communities. If there isn’t one that fits, this is probably the best instance for you to make that community
piracy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.