• Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1426 months ago

    Once again: if paying for it isn’t owning it, then not paying for it isn’t stealing it.

      • @smik@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        246 months ago

        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.

            • Neshura
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        296 months ago

        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.

        • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -376 months ago

          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.

          • @VonReposti@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            166 months ago

            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.

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            56 months ago

            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.

          • @Morgikan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26 months ago

            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.

            • @drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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.

              • @Morgikan@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                26 months ago

                Yeah, I remember the days of renting VCR players and acting like we didn’t already own one so we could play on one and record off the other. I think a lot of this is due to the rise in Internet infrastructure. 15 years ago streaming services wouldn’t have been doable. There was no licensing, just files to download. You’d even get Digital Download codes in your DVD case when buying a movie, so you had multiple copies. Really sad how things are consolidating.

                • @drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  There was no licensing, just files to download.

                  I think some kind of licensing was tehcnicall there, it was just easy to ignore back then bc they weren’t pushing it in our faces every second (like i remember warnings on beginning of movies even before 2000s). I kinda remember one of my friends getting music off amzaon a long time ago but for stuff like that i assume it was just a EULA that they could click once and be done with (no clue how it works present day). Maybe it depends on exactly what we’re talking about, but just saying I’m confident that greedy bastards would have some kind of legal something tied to it, even in 2000s before you could download. I just don’t care - don’t let em know you real info and fuck em 😀

            • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -36 months ago

              I’m not “extremely young”, in fact I’m likely older than you. That is always how digital purchases have worked.

      • @DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        106 months ago

        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?

          • @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            76 months ago

            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.

          • @smik@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            66 months ago

            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.

              • Neshura
                link
                fedilink
                English
                16 months ago

                Doesn’t make it any better of a practice. If anything it just highlights what kind of trashcan company Ferrari avtually is

        • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -13
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

      • Alien Nathan Edward
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        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.

  • DreamySweet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • @echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      66 months ago

      You can, the store is closed, you can still download games to it. It’s easier to just pirate them, however

      • DreamySweet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        96 months ago

        I’ve tried, it didn’t work. I have since moved on to emulation where I get a better experience.

        Piracy is easy and so is not buying any of their new consoles. They don’t have any games anyway so I’m not missing out.

        • @the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          66 months ago

          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

          1. connect your PSP to WiFi a challenge in it of itself

          2. 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.

          3. sign into your Sony account on your PSP

          4. goto account management

          5. select transaction management

          6. select downloads list

          7. 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

          • DreamySweet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26 months ago

            Way more effort than it should be. I downloaded most of them from the compact disc romance website.

            • @the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              26 months ago

              Tbh this is how you’d normally download it with one additional step to get a password once if you haven’t signed in.

              This is a portable from 2004

              • DreamySweet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -16 months ago

                They shouldn’t have released it if they didn’t intend to support it.

        • @gim@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          The umd is $5 or something. When the physical media is so cheap I don’t even bother pirating

          • DreamySweet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You can’t put a UMD into a PSP go. Also, I already bought the game, I shouldn’t have to buy it again.

  • ultratiem
    link
    fedilink
    English
    676 months ago

    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.

    🖕

      • ultratiem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        Scum of the earth.

        • amigan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          136 months ago

          My last straw was when they killed OtherOS on the PS3, which was very much part of my purchasing decision. Sure, it was kneecapped from the start (Linux still ran under the hypervisor, could not use the GPU, and was only given 6 Cell cores), but it was there. At least I got a $60 check from the class action settlement!

          Bunch of cocksuckers. I have not purchased a Sony product since.

          • Norah - She/They
            link
            fedilink
            English
            86 months ago

            You see, they wanted all the benefits of being able to use OtherOS in their marketing. But they didn’t want you to actually use it!

            • amigan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Basically. In Sony’s case, they were clearly afraid of homebrew games, but I still can’t imagine any other rationale than what you said for killing the feature, especially as neutered as it was. It definitely taught me a lesson about buying products that can’t be kill switched after purchase. The US Air Force even built a cluster of 1700 PS3s that relied on this feature. I’m sure they weren’t routable to the internet to get updates though.

        • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          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.

      • Kbin_space_program
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        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.

      • @Docus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        That was what got me to look into piracy. Bought a CD and was unable to copy it to my iPod. Fuck that

    • @Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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).

      • ultratiem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        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.

        Again, 🖕Sony

    • @0x4E4F@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      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.

      • Kbin_space_program
        link
        fedilink
        46 months ago

        I had a Sony Bluetooth MP3 player that accidentally got through a full washer and drier sequence.

        And worked out of the wash for another 3 years.

        Their software was garbage, but christ some of hardware was Nokia levels of tough.

        • @0x4E4F@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          Yeah, hardware wise they’re superb. Software wise… not so much… maybe that’s the reason why they fell so behind on broadcast equipment.

        • @0x4E4F@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          06 months ago

          What do you mean by that? Hardware wise? Except for the optical media, I can’t really see any hardware flaws…

          • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            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.

  • @fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    56
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

  • Elise
    link
    fedilink
    English
    426 months ago

    Wasn’t it Sony that released an album that’d root your system? Bunch of criminals if you ask me.

  • @flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

  • @drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    IMO Piracy is completely justified regardless…

    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.

    edit: fixed a tpyo

    • @trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • @drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 months ago

        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.

  • @Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -40
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    What a crap take.

    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.

    • @DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      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.

  • Zoolander
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -43
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • @_danny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      246 months ago

      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.

      • Zoolander
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -56 months ago

        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.

        • @_danny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Zoolander
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -6
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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.

            • @Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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.

              • Zoolander
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -36 months ago

                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.

                • @MiDaBa@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  46 months ago

                  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.

            • @_danny@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              26 months ago

              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.

              • Zoolander
                link
                fedilink
                English
                06 months ago

                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.

                • @_danny@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  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.

    • Rentlar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If Sony taking something away that you paid for isn’t stealing, then neither is taking something that Sony doesn’t lose.

    • Danny MOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      146 months ago

      How is he dishonest? It’s fine if you disagree with his opinions, but saying he’s dishonest is very… well… dishonest :P

      • @toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I wouldn’t say it’s dishonest. I should say it’s discussion with the evidence that lead op to their point.

        Using their data and our data leads us to an agreeable middle ground.

        • Danny MOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I was referring to his edit which is:

          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

          • @toasteecup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26 months ago

            You know that’s fair and I appreciate your follow up. I personally need to do some research on Rossman so for that thank you

    • @Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      76 months ago

      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.

      • @lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        Agreed.

        Before the change it was educational, now it’s just clickbait and hate

      • Zoolander
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -26 months ago

        He was always a bit dishonest. It’s just gotten to a breaking point.

    • C4RP3_N0CT3M
      link
      fedilink
      36 months ago

      Since when is Rossman controversial? He simply stands on the side of consumer right-to-repair and ownership. Is anyone here against this?

      • Zoolander
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -36 months ago

        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.

        • @jomoo99@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          46 months ago

          This is ludicrous. He might be an asshole but if rossmann does one thing, it’s telling the truth and showing receipts

          • Zoolander
            link
            fedilink
            English
            06 months ago

            Hah. That’s hilarious. You’re not paying attention, then. He lies all the time.