But that said, wouldn’t it be the content owner rather than Sony (who is a third party platform) who is to blame for justifying it in this particular case? (based on the iamge here which seems to imply that the content owner is the one pulling the content rather than sony itself).
Dn’t get me wrong, not saying the situation is good. or that Sony is a good company. Only that they don’t appear to be the ones instigating this move unless I am missing some other info. FWIW, I lost all hope in the idea of a pro-consumer way of doign streaming content ages ago and have been flying the black flag for years so I guess this just doesnt seem like aynthing new to me. I willntt even consiedr paying for netflix, prime, disnet, hbo, hulu, or whateve else. Maybe if they stop being greedy fuckwits and come up with a something fair for consumers I’ll consider but until then, fuck the loto f them.
So, I don’t think you’re wrong but I think there was another way to do this.
A live example is the Deadpool game on steam. The original game is no longer available and cannot be purchased, bought, rented, or anything. However, if you bought it, you still have access to downloading it.
The reason? The new deadpool IP shredded the contracts with the original game developers primarily because the voice actors weren’t the ones everyone is now accustomed to (mostly ryan reynolds).
Steam managed to allow the content owners to be able to download and install the game without any problems while also complying with the new terms surrounding the deadpool ip.
This is primarily sony’s fault, in my opinion, because they chose not to go to bat for their customer base and opted to fuck over their own customers. If they do not refund everyone for all the content then anything sony has ever made should be pirated by everyone from now on because it’s clear that ownership no longer exists and if I can’t own anything, then I also can’t steal anything because clearly no one ‘owns’ it if even the people that paid for it cannot use it.
The reason? The new deadpool IP shredded the contracts with the original game developers primarily because the voice actors weren’t the ones everyone is now accustomed to (mostly ryan reynolds).
Makes me wonder how out of touch those guys are that they see the only solution is the nuclear route. Even if there were more issues than just this, it seems like better options could be found.
Steam managed to allow the content owners to be able to download and install the game without any problems while also complying with the new terms surrounding the deadpool ip.
That’s a very good example and I agree that’s a much better way to do it.
I would think tho that this was more of a difference in how the original contracts were designed (e.g. Steam probably planned for this from day 1) but it’s clear that wherever along the timeline the decision was made that Steam handled it way better than Sony.
I think one other angle we’re probably missing is that Sony is in the movie industry in a big way, where Steam is not. From everything I’ve seen, film/movie/tv/music bigwigs are some of the greediest and most childish asshats in existence. Just look at the pettiness of their lawsuits.
In my opinion the wrong thing is getting the focus because legally Sony nor WB stole from anyone in the legal sense. I know it is unethical, but unfortunately that is not a winning argument in the business or legal worlds. The winning thing to do here is popularize the notion that “buying” from these services is not really buying and no one should do it. While at the same time popularizing the idea that any content tied to such a model is not worth consuming.
By pirating it it is just proving there is some value in these products even with all of the BS the rights holders tie them down with. The message needs to be sent in a way executives and lawyers understand that when you make your product customer hostile to obtain legally you make that product effectively worthless and the customer will go elsewhere for their entertainment. Including DRM has to cost them more than they stand to lose from those that will pirate it anyway. Because money is all executives and lawyers understand.
This would also effectively create a demand for smaller projects not tied down with all of that DRM shit that maybe some enterprising people would start to fill.
Years ago when I still bought music from Apple my entire library disappeared. I could log in, but nothing was there. I didn’t bother with customer service, in an hour I had all my music back and it was mine.
Depends, did you literally get the title and agree that you were purchasing it from the last owner before he decided a day later that you were renting it and took it all back?
It’s more like upfront paying a rented Lambo and the car dealer can order it back anytime without notice and reason. You know it’s rented although you paid a huge sum (often as high as a new Lambo) but it might have been the only way to get that specific model. You just hope they are a nice company and let you drive as long as possible. Also, you can’t resell it either ofc.
No no, the service has to have the license. It’s like you buy a lambo from “steve’s lambos,” but he then 2y later loses the rights to sell lambos, lambo pulls their license. So lambo comes and takes your car out of the garage because the guy who sold it to you no longer has the right to sell it, even though he did have that right at the time of the transaction.
With digital shows and movies -and games - you’re essentially buying a limited license that can be revoked at any time. This shouldn’t be news to anyone. You’re not actually buying ownership of the show/movie.
Even physical media you’re just buying a license. That license has restrictions.
depends, when you’re done “stealing” it does the original owner still have it? you’re making the same mistake that this phrase was meant to address: that infinitely replicable goods aren’t the same as physical, exclusive goods.
If you buy a Lamborghini and they have the ability to later decide you don’t actually own it and take it away, that’s the equivalent. I don’t know why you brought up renting. Renting was never mentioned.
If you knew anything about digital purchasing you’d understand why u brought it up.
When you “buy” a digital tv show or movie you’re not actually buying it, you’re purchasing a license to use it, a license that can be revoked, for content that can be removed.
I swear most people have no idea how digital ownership works. I expected more from people on here at least.
I’m guessing you are extremely young as that is not how digital purchases have historically worked. The concept of “you bought a license to use it” hasn’t been around long. Before that, you would be given an access code to go to a publisher’s website like Disney and download a copy of the content you purchased. It wasn’t tied to any licensing server or authentication system past that point, you just had a digital copy of your purchase.
I think legally, rights holders have always been asshats. I remember something called a V-C-R and when media was on magnetic tapes… even back then, there were warnings at the beginning of films. That was back before there were stream content and you had to physical drive or walk to buildings that contained the videos and pay for a rental… and a lot of poeple would make their own copies.
I think the big things that have changed is:
The DMCA (and I mean the bill, not the notices people get bc of the bill) made “fair use” - like recording a personal copy of a rented or broadcasted film/music/etc - a lot tricker, legally speaking
People moving to consume most of their “standard” tv content from “no”-cost (technically paid for by non-skippable non-targeted ads) public broadcast over radio waves and picked up via tv antenae just like radio stations but with video to cable-tv networks that were tightly controlled by greedy bastards. (hint: all of those greedy cable-tv bastards are mostly all the same guys trying to control streaming services today, they just moved from cable to internet).
The expanse of the itnernet + increase of world population / percent of the world thats connected means that one copy is spread a LOT more than when a guy made a copy from a video rental store
Most companies have gotten more aggressive about marking their territory and pissing legal warnings all over there content than in the old days
That said, I hate big companies and even if it is morally untenable, I will still continue to pirate, bc fuck em. If I could download a car or a barrel of whiskey, I’d pirate those too. maybe someday we’ll get star trek-style replicators and i can finally download a car.
The equivalent would be that you pay a million for a Lambo which is just an indefinite license they can revoke at any time. Renting isn’t comparable at all.
We all know how it works. The problem is that’s the only way it works. With a car you can choose to rent. With modern things you “purchase” it, and it only works as long as they want. You do have some alternatives for some media, but for games that’s it. Even if you purchase a disk, the game only functions as long as they allow it.
In German we say Raubkopie which translates to “robbery copy”. It sounds metal but linguistically puts it right next to actual robbery which is kinda insane.
Raubmord is what we call a murder resulting from a busted/discovered robbery, essentially just escalating the consequences of the robbery further.
What I think OP is getting at are the absolutely ridiculous penalties you get for “stealing” something that physically doesn’t exist in a way we can grasp and cannot be reported mssing once “stolen”. I’d probably guess you’d be easier off actually stealing a movie from a store selling blurays than downloading it and getting caught so the renaming OP did fits perfectly imo
Good lord… you can point out how shitty Sony is for taking away purchased content without being sensationalist and claim this justifies piracy. Whoever wrote this sucks.
Edit: Oh god… It’s Rossman. Of course it’s dishonest.
Edit: Oh god… It’s Rossman. Of course it’s dishonest.
And my argument was that it’s fine to disagree with him (especially if you have conflicting evidence), but I don’t think that it’s warranted to call Rossmann dishonest
By the way, I don’t even necessarily disagree with his main opinion, the video title is clickbaity for sure
It kinda does add some validity to the argument. The seller can just take away a product without compensating you for it, in most situations we call that theft. If they are going to steal the content from you, morally I see no problem stealing it back.
It’s of course still illegal, but I wouldn’t say it’s immoral in this situation.
That’s the thing, though. I’m not denying that what they’re doing is wrong. They shouldn’t be able to do that. They should either be required to refund those purchases or they shouldn’t be allowed to remove them. Either way, that doesn’t justify piracy. This is just people who already are pirating finding a reason to justify it for themselves after the fact to make them feel better.
They should either be required to refund those purchases or they shouldn’t be allowed to remove them.
No disagreement there, but we live in a world where they absolutely can and will do this stuff and get away with it with no consequences. Until either of those two options you propose are reached, I see no moral issue with pirating a game content you paid for and can no longer play.
I’m not talking about the morality of a person who was already pirating it before, or pirate games videos not affected by this issue. Just a case where a person bought a game content from Sony, who then removed their purchase without compensation due to reasons beyond the terms and conditions the customer expected.
The terms and conditions you mention, though, explicitly state that you don’t own the media and that they can revoke the license at any time. If people didn’t like it, they shouldn’t have given Sony their money. Don’t buy products if you don’t like the terms of the purchase. It’s precisely because people bought this shit that we have the system we do. Why would the publishers and Sony change it when they’re still making money and telling people ahead of time that this media can go away? It makes zero sense for them to change it as much as it made zero sense for people to buy these videos if it was important to them that they could access it forever.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with games. This is only about video content for which Sony no longer has publishing rights to so, even if they wanted to, they can’t let you keep this content. It’s a shitty system that’s working exactly as intended by the publishers (read conmen) behind digital media and both Sony and its users are being punished for willingly taking part in their system.
These people have zero moral standing when they agreed to these terms when they bought the media. The idea that this somehow justifies piracy is ridiculous.
There is no way you read the entire eula, only found out after the fact. This is basically fraud towards the user. Revoking the license or not, shady as fuck. So they should get mad when we pirate? Steam has proven that piracy is a service issue, and Sony validated it.
You don’t have to read the full EULA. It’s literally written on the purchase page that your access can be revoked at any time. I agree it’s fraud to the user. That doesn’t mean it justifies piracy. Stop agreeing to things you don’t want. This entire situation exists because people set the precedent that, even with these ludicrous terms, they’re willing to buy anyways. It’s death by a thousand cuts and everyone who bought this bullshit is holding a knife.
I really don’t know why you’re going so far out of your way to defend a company that you yourself just said is commiting fraud. I know you probably think you’re actually making a case against piracy and not for Sony but in reality you’re putting in a lot of work into making Sony’s case for them. Your argument is that if a company is able to slip a gotcha past a dumb customer then it’s the customer’s fault for not noticing. You’re acting like there’s an alternative when there is not. Giving up on music is not an alternative, all digital content outlets seem to do this and who even owns a means to play physical media anymore? Considering there is no technical reason a company would need to revoke a digital license I’d say morally there’s nothing wrong with getting that content back in a way that does no harm to the license provider. That is unless you believe that not buying it twice somehow harms the company you’ve already paid. I’d further argue that if a company is willing to engage in fraud (your words) then that company is not ethical. A company that behaves unethically should have no expectations of their customers to behave ethically in return. You said people should stop agreeing to ludicrous terms. So long as these companies are issuing terms that you say no one should agree to I’d say piracy is completely justified from a moral standpoint. If they don’t like it then they should quit providing dubious terms and instead provide a reasonable option for a legal purchase.
This is disingenuous. They’re not “slipping a gotcha” past anyone. It’s literally on the purchase page. Every single person that bought something is shown this message.
There is 100% an alternative. Buy physical media. Buy things that you own that they can’t take away from you. The whole reason we’re in this situation is because people decided that this was ok by “buying” this content via those terms and setting a precedent that it’s ok.
Everything else you’re saying is just an excuse. People don’t own means to play physical media anymore? Nonsense. Go buy a player or a drive and then rip your own content. Either way, you have it as long as you want. No technical reason? Nonsense. It doesn’t matter what their reasons are. If you don’t like the terms that are presented to you ahead of time, don’t buy the thing.
This is just entitlement. You want the convenience of what they’re offering without the restrictions yet you keep accepting those restrictions every time you buy one of these things. STOP DOING IT.
And to backtrack a little… I’m not defending the company. Sony is not committing fraud if they’re telling you these terms ahead of time. You’re twisting what I said into something I didn’t. I’m decrying the people that let these companies get away with this shit because they’re too lazy, entitled, or stupid to have the self-control to not buy the bag of shit that’s being sold. If I sold you a movie for your PS5 and you could keep it forever but you had to eat a bag of shit in order to own it, would you still do that? Apparently you would because that’s basically what everyone that buys digital content under a temporary license is doing.
I’m starting to think you’re a bot. You most definitely said it was fraud to the user. No, I’m not going to go buy a mechanical blueray player and then try to figure out how to rip that content to be able to use it how I want. If you think anyone is really going to follow your needlessly complicated advice then you’re in for a rude awakening. You can keep beating this drum all day long but your attitude (and Sonys) is why piracy is going up. If you want to hang on the “you agreed to it” bull then then that’s up to you. More and more people are done caring though and there is nothing you can say to change that. Companies that put out crap terms are getting what they deserve. Your solution is no solution. Buying physical media in 2023 is just not acceptable.
Just went to confirm what I remembered: At least on Amazon you get zilch info that what you are buying is revokable unless you read the fine print in the EULA. There is no warning, no hint, no nothing that what you just bought is only a permanent rental license. Neither in the UI nor in the bill after the purchase
Piracy is not going up. You’re dreaming. What’s going up is the cost of everything and what’s going down is our ability to own anything and the fault lays at the feet of people like you. This “I’m agreeing to it but don’t think I have to follow it” attitude is exactly how we got into this situation in the first place. It’s exactly why Sony and MS released digital versions of their consoles that guarantee that you don’t own anything you buy and why everything is now a monthly subscription. Thanks a lot for that, asshole.
And my solution is a solution because at least it’s one that works as opposed to the one you’re offering that doesn’t work at all. I have an entire collection of physical media that they can’t take away from me. What do you have? Nothing, apparently, and you’ve even lost money because they just took your money and ran. Great job.
The fact that it’s video or a game is irrelevant to the argument, but I have amended my comment.
Second, I specifically said how they “understand the terms” because like .01% of customers read the terms and conditions before buying, even for super large purchases like cars and houses most people don’t read the entire contract. It’s a flaw in the legal system that allows companies to hide shady practices like what Sony is doing and force customers to just take it. Even if you read it, you’d need a law degree to properly understand what the document is conveying.
Most people understand the process of buying media as “I give you money, you give me content” not “I give you money, you give me a license to watch the content” it’s not explicit about the lack of ownership. If someone asked you "what movies do you own, hopefully you’re not going to be a smart ass and say “technically production studios are the only ones who own movies anymore”
You’re still jumping the moral argument and going straight to the legal one. I’m not arguing the legal one because it’s clear that privacy is not legal (by definition)
However if you sell someone a movie and hide a clever contract (that you know for a fact the customer will not read) in the deal so that you can invalidate the content at any time you feel like it, Don’t expect me to cry you a river when your customer bypasses your asinine contract by making a local copy for personal use.
If the terms are not explicitly explained in understandable language, then morally terms are non-existent and the deal should be revoked with both parties receiving their property back.
Except neither Sony nor any other distributor (Netflix, for example) hides the fact that they don’t own the content that you’re paying for and that they have no control over how long you have access to that license - the content owners do.
It’s irrelevant that most people misunderstand the process of buying media. It is clearly spelled out. And I’m not making any legal argument at all. I’m making the contractual argument. With or without the legal system, when you buy something, anything, you’re creating a contract for an exchange of goods or services for money. Sony tells you what you’re getting. They don’t hide anything, as you’re implying. If you still buy it anyways, that’s on you. Claiming people need a law degree to understand something like
“Purchased Content will generally remain available for you to download, redownload, or otherwise access from xxx. Though it is unlikely, subsequent to your purchase, Content may be removed from the Services (for instance, because the provider removed it) and become unavailable for further download or access from xxx.”
is disingenuous. That’s plain English and pulled directly from the purchase page from iTunes. That makes your entire argument here invalid. You asked for understandable language and it’s there. You just didn’t read it or you did read it and bought it anyways without thinking about the consequences of what that means. That’s on you.
Again, I believe they owe you a refund in those cases but that wasn’t part of the contract that you agreed to.
It’s irrelevant if it’s in the terms or not if Sony knows for a fact that most people will not check the terms. It doesn’t matter if people should read the terms, it doesn’t matter how the terms are specified. That information is buried in a 10,000 word contract no one is going to read (the PSN Store terms and conditions is actually about 10,000 words, over an hour to read)
Customers could “buy” a product with the understanding that they owned the product in perpetuity. Sony then removed the product from the customer after the purchase without providing a refund.
You’re not even trying to understand the opposing view, so I’m kinda done with this conversation.
It’s not irrelevant. It’s shown on the purchase page. It’s not buried in some EULA that has pages upon pages of content. It’s entirely relevant that people are buying something they’re told about in advance and then complaining when they got exactly what they bought.
I am not trying to understand the opposing view because I already understand it. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that they can and do do this because people like you have made it clear that it’s ok for them to sell things this way by purchasing their content. I fully understand your argument, I’m just pointing out the nonsensical nature of it. There’s no fraud happening here, the product is not being misrepresented, they tell you in advance that the license can be revoked at any time, and yet you still continue to purchase this digital content. On top of that, this kinda bullshit shows up on Lemmy and Reddit and every other site regularly so pretending like you don’t know that these purchases are licenses only is horseshit unless you want to pretend like you just found this out now when Sony did it. This is no one’s fault but your own along with everyone else that has rewarded these assholes by accepting the shit being spoon-fed to them and rewarding them with money.
Wake the fuck up and stop buying the shit if you don’t like it. “But I want it really bad” isn’t a fucking reason or an excuse. You’re the reason we’re in this mess because you have no self-control.
Rossman has become something weird lately. Just full of hate and not any real knowledge, kinda like the Alex Jones of “tech”, just whine and scream into a camera for attention. I had to unsub and block his channel it was so toxic.
Rossman is a dishonest guy that’s working to promote his business through right to repair controversies. He’s never really been controversial but lately people are getting wise to his schtick.
I stopped supporting Sony when they took away access to games I purchased for my PSP. I will not purchase another Sony product until I can play Patapon on my PSP go without pirating it.
That’s the ending credits song. Patapon doesn’t have a typical soundtrack. Patapon is kind of like a side-scrolling RTS and rhythm game hybrid where you give commands to the Patapons by playing drums using the face buttons on the PSP. The Patapons sing in response to your commands, creating a unique song for each playthrough of each level. “Pon-pon-pata-pon!” (or circle-circle-square-circle), for example, is the command for attacking enemies. It’s a very interesting and fun game series but it’s less fun when you’re not the one playing it.
If you have a PSP Street then Sony gave you the proverbial middle finger since both Media Go (PC Software to download and manage digital PSP games), and transferring games from PS3 to PSP doesn’t work.
But if you have a PSP that can connect to WiFi you absolutely can still download PSP games. You just need to
connect your PSP to WiFi a challenge in it of itself
generate a Password for your account since Sony requires 2fa and PSP doesn’t support 2fa. Its on your Sony Account settings somewhere from a browser.
sign into your Sony account on your PSP
goto account management
select transaction management
select downloads list
select game you wanna download
Lots of guides out there for extracting PSP ISO or PS1 ISO from digital games on YouTube. Definitely worth looking into to preserve your collection
Sony has always treated its customers like absolute trash from the get go. As a kid, I had a stereo that ended up dying. They weaselled out of the warranty. Flash forward to my Sony headphones where one ear died and they did the same. Forward again to my Ericsson phone whose screen died due to “water damage” (the markers were triggered by a friend who worked in their repair department said all phones on high humidity zones were always triggered because back then phones weren’t even dust proof). They sent it back refusing to fix it.
Since then they have been on my embargo list. One of the worst companies for caring about their customers.
I remember my friends mom got an s3 and the water damage tag was triggered before they even left the store, they tried to exchange it for another one but it was triggered too.
I’m still convinced that many of them were purposely triggered so they could deny warranty claims. It makes too much sense.(I know s series isn’t sony, I just mean most companies do this).
I don’t think it was on purpose, but who knows what their facilities are like. Maybe their phones are built in a literal sweat shop lol.
In any case, it was a ridiculous thing to use to weasel their way out of a repair given how unreliable those markers are. I would definitely have taken as much evidence as possible and reported it to the consumer watchdog in your country.
Have to admit though, when it comes to quality equipment, they do take the cake. I’ve never had a Sony product break on me (except my walkman, but that was my fault 😂).
But, to be honest, I’ve never consumed anything but audio and video equipment from them (receiver amplifiers and TVs). Things may be different in other departments, including their PS department.
The PS had weak plastic laser eye rails. Prolonged use warped them causing laser/disc misalignment, so you would have to often play with the console up side down etc to try and adjust for it.
The PS2 has the disc read error, lost multiple class action lawsuits over the design flaw.
PS3 had the yellow light of death. Design/manufacturing flaw like the Xbox red ring of death.
The Sony minidisc players were decent hardware, but the app that loaded music onto the discs was completely garbage.
It would set the bit rate down to sub 40kbps(so it looked like you had mp3 Cd levels of storage, and would move the original music files it "loaded" deep into %appdata% to try and hide the originals from you.
Yeah another stellar case in point to show Sony would rather you eat glass than have to do anything for you.
Let’s not forget the ridiculous court case against Geohotz for jail breaking the PS3. They pulled out every dirty tactic they could in that suit. Really showed their colours and how they actually “fight” in the court of law.
Sony are one of the most anti consumer companies around, yet their diehard fans and the gaming media especially just give them a free pass. It’s disgusting.
Edit: it’s not because Sony steals(? I actually don’t know but it was probably in something you signed so ‘legally’ not theft, but again, IDK. Shitty? Yeah.) stuff that piracy is justified. Piracy is justifidled by other moral means IMO. I don’t need Sony (or Microsoft, Apple, or whoever) to help my morals when it comes to pirating.
I mean he rants too much but Luis point was that if you bought a digital product and the seller just randomly decides you don’t get to access it anymore it’s okay to pirate it because you’ve already paid for it. The original creators of said content already got their cut from you the first time.
Add comment