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.
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.
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.
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.