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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.