People don't own the stuff they paid for, by design.
Pirate it or get it in Blu-ray.
Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
141–150 of 182 posts
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#142> you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed Content you purchased. Their wording. Not content you rented, not license you paid for. They are effectively stealing the content you purchased.
Devil's advocate: you can purchase a license. The law uses terms like "purchase" and "ownership" in reference to temporary/conditional delegated ownership all the time. The legalese in contracts usually looks something like "purchasing a temporary use-right over X." For a good — and centuries-old — example, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_estate is something that's "owned"... but only for a certain number o…
Perhaps the leasehold model is interesting. With the PlayStation example, they can withdraw access to the content at any time, whereas a leasehold gives you restricted ownership for a fixed period of time.
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#143People don't own the stuff they paid for, by design. Pirate it or get it in Blu-ray.
[deleted]
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Louis Rossmann on YouTube: "If paying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing." (shamelessly copied from the top comment on /r/piracy on this very subject)
It’s never been about whether piracy was stealing or not. It’s about what the courts have to say on the matter. Find yourself on the wrong end of a big copyright case and your life gets ruined, regardless of what word you use to describe it.
> It’s never been about whether piracy was stealing or not. It’s about what the courts have to say on the matter. Find yourself on the wrong end of a big copyright case and your life gets ruined, regardless of what word you use to describe it.
How many individuals have actually had their lives ruined, outside a very small number of people like Alexandra Elbakyan? Plenty of companies have been shutdown over the matter and plenty of scene groups have been raided but ever since Aaron Swartz prosecutors in the US seem to have little appetite for such cases and Europe has always been lenient as far as criminal penalties go. The latest scene group raids that made it to HN's front page ended in 60 day suspended sentences for the offenders which is a complete joke as far as penalties go. Nonviolent offenses that are barely worth prosecuting in most jurisdictions if not for media industry handwringing.
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#145Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#146Just pirate everything
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure they are going to have to refund everyone. That has happened with these kind of B2B disagreements in the past, google stadia was the last one I think. https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-get-your-google-stadia-re... Although there is probably plenty of others.
Read your own article. The byline reads: > Google is taking the unprecedented step of paying back users for all the games they bought on its cloud gaming platform. Google _voluntarily_ refunded their customers. It's unheard of and was, frankly, extremely unexpected. Good for Google and good for Stadia customers.
Voluntary refunds like this are often the result of a risk assessment. What is the risk to their brand, what is their risk legally. One could argue that they only did this to avoid damage to their brand and the damage to the industry if it had become the catalyst to laws changing around content licensing.
I hope PlayStation does not refund customers and that this is the catalyst we need to change content licensing to consumers. A purchased license should cross transcend platform lock-in and the removal of content from a given platform. If no platform exists for your content to be consumed then you should have the legal right to download the content.
It should not be legal to sell a perpetual or indefinite license on a specific platform. If it was clear that the license was only valid for x number of years consumers could factor that into their purchasing decision.
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#148Another argument for piracy.
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are tons of things you can't do with it. You can't exhibit it publicly. You don't own the movie on the tape! You just own a tape. I am refuting the original poster's claim that "With DRM you never purchase _content_. You only purchase a _license_ to access it." This is true, but is meant to imply there is an alternative. There isn't, a you only have a license to the content in all cases, including DRM-free phys…
Ok, your original post was ambiguous then because you didn't talk about content at all, you talked about "in what sense do you own [A VHS]", so people explained how owning a VHS is different from licensing digital media. Mostly that your license to the content of a VHS cannot be revoked arbitrarily after you purchase the VHS itself.
I suppose. But the original post also omitted this distinction. I’ll add that the same inability to revoke also applies to digital media with no DRM.
Re: Playstation removing previously purchased Discovery content
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s never been about whether piracy was stealing or not. It’s about what the courts have to say on the matter. Find yourself on the wrong end of a big copyright case and your life gets ruined, regardless of what word you use to describe it.
> It’s never been about whether piracy was stealing or not. It’s about what the courts have to say on the matter. Find yourself on the wrong end of a big copyright case and your life gets ruined, regardless of what word you use to describe it. How many individuals have actually had their lives ruined, outside a very small number of people like Alexandra Elbakyan? Plenty of companies have been shutdown over the matter…
It's a very small number, admittedly, but the damage is huge.
People in general aren't great at dealing with low-probability high-impact events. I think we're also not so great at dealing with legal and economic issues where the effect on most people is tiny but a small number are either affected extremely negatively (by losing these cases) or extremely positively (becoming tremendously wealthy as copyright holders).