Once again: if paying for it isn’t owning it, then not paying for it isn’t stealing it.
That’s why the term piracy exists.
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.
That’s why I call it Raubmordkopie
Raubmordkopie
Robbery murder copy? (at least thats’ what google is telling me ‘mord’ means?)
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
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 still remember the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal.
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.
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 removed. I have not purchased a Sony product since.
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!
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.
We never got those things here, everything was already pirated 😂.
That was what got me to look into piracy. Bought a CD and was unable to copy it to my iPod. Fuck that
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.
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.
Again, 🖕Sony
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.
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.
Yeah, hardware wise they’re superb. Software wise… not so much… maybe that’s the reason why they fell so behind on broadcast equipment.
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.
Wasn’t it Sony that released an album that’d root your system? Bunch of criminals if you ask me.
Wow that’s even worse than I thought. Especially that they included copyleft software.
Sony has always been an industry leader in consumer abuse.
Nah, that would be Nintendo
TBF, he said “an” leader not “the” leader
Eh, Nintendo is fiercely protective of their IP to a fault. I won’t defend them, but I certainly don’t view their practices the same as I view Sony’s.
And they tasted the wrath of collective hacker grp Anonymous because of that
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.
If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing.
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
New Lemmy Post: Sony Steals Customers’ Purchased Content - Piracy is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED! (https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/9579257)
Tagging: #Piracy(Replying in the OP of this thread (NOT THIS BOT!) will appear as a comment in the lemmy discussion.)
I am a FOSS bot. Check my README: https://github.com/db0/lemmy-tagginator/blob/main/README.md
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.
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.
And I’m totally in favour of that. I was just hitting at the shitty click bait title.
You must have read your own comment
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.
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 gamecontent 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
gamesvideos not affected by this issue. Just a case where a person boughta gamecontent 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.
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.
If Sony taking something away that you paid for isn’t stealing, then neither is taking something that Sony doesn’t lose.
I never said it wasn’t stealing. Nice straw man, though.
How is he dishonest? It’s fine if you disagree with his opinions, but saying he’s dishonest is very… well… dishonest :P
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.
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
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
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.
Agreed.
Before the change it was educational, now it’s just clickbait and hate
He was always a bit dishonest. It’s just gotten to a breaking point.
Since when is Rossman controversial? He simply stands on the side of consumer right-to-repair and ownership. Is anyone here against this?
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.
This is ludicrous. He might be an asshole but if rossmann does one thing, it’s telling the truth and showing receipts
Hah. That’s hilarious. You’re not paying attention, then. He lies all the time.
