When I buy a game it says “buy” or “purchase” next to the price. Not “lease”.
They need a more realistic button: “Pay to enjoy it until it disappears with no warning”
Sony hard at work to be the next Nintendo.
Pirate all of their shit. Jailbreak your PS if you can. Do not give them a single penny.
Anyone else out there driving a 2012 Ford F-150?
No, only one person can own it
Lawyers: “That’s so stupid, it just might work!”
Narrator: “It didn’t work.”
I saw that documentary! The quality of the narration was excellent.
This will fuel more free to play games. You have some fun, I guess spend money if you like, and then move on to the next one and most will run on a laptop or phone that costs the same as the console. And you can do more than just play games with it.
What Sony is ignoring is that this basically erodes trust.
Some will buy it but I’ll just watch a stream.
Laughably easy to refute - I believe I own digital games, and I’ll take any standardized test to prove I’m not stupid. Have your people call my people.
I’m sorry to say guys. I’m the only person who owns Lord of the Rings book. It is what it is. I don’t make the rules. If you ask me nicely, I might let you read it.
I’ll give you some old pogs for the rights to Gimli and Legolas I have some… Ideas
I call dibs on shield stairway surfing.
By that logic piracy cannot cause damages above the retail value of a single copy regardless of how many times it was downloaded because ultimately they only stole 1 game.
They really think we’re that stupid… not without good reasons unfortunately.
Most of those crimes are for poor people anyways.
By that logic piracy cannot cause damages above the retail value of a single copy regardless of how many times it was downloaded because ultimately they only stole 1 game.
Yeah…
The problem is you think the logic is wrong and not the punishment for illegal downloading should be at absolute most, the cost of a personal copy. Even if you made the download 100 times for reinstalls.
Which honestly, is how it works…
The thing is people that don’t seed are assholes, and for every person you seed to, you just distributed it to them. And if/when that can be quantified, that’s when huge charges rack up.
Like there was a porn company that seeded their own videos, logged IPs, and anyone they could identify was sued for distributing to every other person, regardless of if they could be identified. I think that shook out with greatly diminished charges, but I can’t remember
As far as how to fix that,change the laws so instead of user, it’s percent of data. 100% seed ratio would mean you took a copy, and provided a copy. Which would make most piracy not worth the effort of rights holders to enforce. Although Felony theft limits can be as low as $200 in some states and under 1,000 but that being so low due to inflation is a totally different problem.
If we get to change laws, then I’d rather vote on art experts who decide what gets public funding. The whole “you own this idea” nonsense just isn’t working, and it’s getting worse.
So you’re saying that you should use Usenet or one click hosters instead. Got it.
You can just turn off seeding…
But like I said, it’s a dick move to download and not seed. So just pay for a vpn and seed.
But we’re all better off properly legislating digital ownership rights, whether or not you personally pirate media.
The problem is too many people just care about games and nothing else. Nothing that is done about just games can fix this, it’s a bigger problem.
Ahh the old foxnews approach…no reasonable person blah blah
That’s just contract law. Everything is from the stance of what you would assume a reasonable actor or “person” would do in the situation.
Like normally if consideration (the act of pressing the button) was a button that said purchase or buy a reasonable actor would expect ownership.
Their lawyers have to frame everything that way, even if they are obviously wrong.
Jedi mind tricks only work on the simple minded.
Indeed, but it seems like they have been incentivized with all the idiots in charge wielding their magic wands lol
This is also why only one person owns the 2022 ford f150.
They’re trying to say that owning a copy of a video game is not possible as if it hasn’t been the way it always was for decades until they changed that.
as if it hasn’t been the way it always was for decades
until they changed thatand still is, despite their fucking liesFTFY.
I hate the new age of digital games. soon physical games will be antiques. most already are. I gave away all my old PS2 games, I wonder how much they and my N64 games would have been worth.
I don’t. As someone with OG Pirate Bay merch this is the moral justification I needed to get back into emulating. Granted, I’m still playing the same snes games I emulated 20 years ago lmao.
Here I was, using TPB all these years and I didn’t notice they were selling merch back then. LMAO.
Before they got arrested IIRC. They sold stickers. The one on my old bedroom door is still at my parents place!
Exactly why only one person owns the Game of Thrones books and another guy owns the Game of Thrones series. What a loser argument this guy has.
That’s the exact argument…
If you buy a book from GoT, you own the physical pieces of paper the book is printed on, not the words. The reason it costs more than blank pages, is the words printed on there. But you don’t “own” the words. Just the pages that have the word printed on.
If you buy an electronic copy, you don’t “own” anything except the rights to have a copy of that.
Same for games.
You don’t “own” the game, you own the physical media the game is on. If there’s no physical media, then there’s nothing you own.
The reason it’s the same for games and books, is why it’s the same for TV, music, and every other form of media.
The counterargument to that is pretty straightforward…
Books, and other physical media have no inherent time limit on the use. So when I buy a book, I expect to be able to have it for the rest of my life, the life of my kids, maybe even grandkids. I do not own the copywrited material, but I do own the physical copy.
So the reasonable expectation of ownership of the copy when the terms “Buy” or “Purchase” is used , is it’s a permanent purchase of the copy. We have a clear terms for time limited purchases, it’s called “Rent” or “Borrow”.
Therefore the retailers using the terms “Buy” or “Purchase” deliberately decieved the customers for the terms of the purchase aka fraud.
So when I buy a book, I expect to be able to have it for the rest of my life, the life of my kids, maybe even grandkids
What?!
Maybe if your buying archival quality hardbacks and never taking them off the shelf…
Thinking every book will last 40-90 years is not reasonable.
But to be honest, most takes I’ve seen about this hasn’t been reasonable
I have cheap paperbacks from the 1960’s and 70’s I bought at a second hand bookstore in the 90’s on my shelf.
They are fragile and yellow but still sticking together on my shelves and for when I want to reread them. It helps that I live in a region with low humidity.
Hell I gave a few books I inherited from my great-grandmother from 1910-1920. They were on decent paper but not the best quality.
Most of my cookbooks are 40-50 years old now and they are pretty beat up but still in reasonable condition.
I searched to check…
Paperbacks average 10-20, hardbacks 40-60.
But obviously that’s not every book. The more it’s read and the thicker it is the faster the spine falls apart. Obviously a hardback threaded together with heavy paper is better than pulp and cheap glue. But there’s a lot in between the extremes.
I could buy a cheap paperback, throw it on a shelf, and it will look perfect.
That doesn’t mean the glue didn’t magically degrade and it will hold together thru a normal reading tho
The point is that the publisher isn’t going to revoke your access to the physical book at any time. It’s a durable good, and whether the materials last one year or five hundred years is irrelevant to the fact that you (and all subsequent owners) have the legal right to the unimpeded use and enjoyment of the book for as long as it lasts.
When you PURCHASE/BUY/OWN a copy of software, it is reasonable to believe that you have the legal right to the unimpeded use and enjoyment of that copy for as long as it lasts. That means no “always-online” requirements that make ongoing communication with the publisher mandatory, no chance of access to the software being remotely revoked, and no restrictions on gifting or reselling the copy.
The point is that the publisher isn’t going to revoke your access to the physical book at any time
But for kindle if you don’t have a local copy and if it’s removed from the store it’s gone…
When you PURCHASE/BUY/OWN a copy of software, it is reasonable to believe that you have the legal right to the unimpeded use and enjoyment of that copy for as long as it lasts.
Right…
And if you don’t have a local copy of the install file, “as long as it lasts” is as long as you can download it…
That means no “always-online” requirements that make ongoing communication with the publisher mandatory
Then only buy peer to peer games.
Anything that has corporate servers, will eventually be turned.
I fully support you and everyone else doing that, it’s the only way peer to peer servers will get better. But I honestly thought everyone understood this, it’s incredibly basic but obviously a lot of people had zero idea what they were actually spending money on.
Most importantly:
When you PURCHASE/BUY/OWN a copy of software
You’re not buying a copy of the software, you’re being a license to use the software.
It’s different and you not understanding the difference is why it’s so upset and you don’t know what to ask for to fix it.
You buy the content first and foremost. The disk is just what it’s on, you own the physical disk and the content.
If I buy a game on gog, does nobody own it? Does it even exist? This is such a stupid point to try and make.
We don’t own games not because they are digital, but because of malware embedded in it. Not sure what you are trying to defend here.
The reason it’s the same for games and books, is why it’s the same for TV, music, and every other form of media.
every other form of media where the license to use is terrible. The fact you need a digital store to download the data that “doesn’t fit” on a disc is already crossing that line imo, but also. I am totally fine with them a digital download to be honest, but I am not going to accept them turning the ecosystem into a monopoly. No disk no buy for me. At least on pc there are multiple vendors. They will lose me as a user if they will only sell digital licenses from their own store. We’re finally getting rid that shit on mobile, no way I’m going along with it.
Great, no one is making you buy them…
And if enough don’t, they’ll stop doing it.
Zero idea why you felt the need to tell me you don’t like it, obviously no consumer likes this.
God forbid someone try to talk about something in a forum, right?
They will lose me as a user if they will only sell digital licenses from their own store.
That’s like saying:
They will lose me as a customer if they only sell diarrhea tacos
No one’s disagreeing, it’s an incredibly common opinion, especially here. And it’s not really relevant to what I was saying.
So what was the point?
Say something everyone agrees with and get clapped on the back?
Have fun man, I won’t call you out anymore, because I won’t see any of your comments anymore. You can do whatever
Holy shit, are their lawyers really so incompetent they don’t understand the difference between holding the copyright and owning a copy? They need to get a refund for the Cracker Jacks boxes they got their law school diplomas out of!
I have two $5 bills in my hand. That’s impossible!