• DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

  • drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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.

  • Elise@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 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.

    🖕

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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.

      • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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@lemmy.dynatron.me
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

            • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

    • 0x4E4F@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

        • 0x4E4F@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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.

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

  • DreamySweet@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah so if I go rent a Lamborghini for a day that means I own it and don’t have to give it back?

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 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.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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.

          • VonReposti@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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.

          • Morgikan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

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

            • drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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 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
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 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.

      • fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh, so if I do something that isn’t buying something do I still have a valid point to make?

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 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@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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.

      • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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?

          • smik@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 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
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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@bookwormstory.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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