Comment by consp
4 years ago
I really would like to know how they will get around article 10 of EU directive 2019/770 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Edit: As far as I heard it is valid for anything delivered after Jan 1st 2022, which includes continuation of exiting indefinite contracts from before that date and the continuation of them. Correct me if I'm wrong/misinformed though.
Isn't it silly that there needs to be laws written to ensure consumers simply get what they paid for?
The whole reason laws exist is because we recognise not everyone can be trusted to act in a decent manner. The law gives us a way to codify what "decent" means and to explain to folks what we expect of them (as well as consequences for when folks step outside those boundaries).
What I'm trying to say is that no, it is not silly. In fact the entire civilised world is built on the premise that laws are required.
Fundamentally businesses have no morals, and everything is just an equation based on profits. If it makes economical sense to do this, many a business would be inclined to do it.
Not saying that it’s right, but it’s definitely completely understandable why we need laws to protect consumers.
I mean a company like this can always deny you the things you've paid for by going out of business and closing the platform.
You should just assume that if you buy a digital license to something that it's never really yours
3 replies →
> it’s definitely completely understandable why we need laws to protect consumers.
Do we really? Rutracker has everything that was mentioned as removed. And much more. These “consumer protecting” laws are actually a patch on business protecting laws, increasing a bit their survivability.
That's why (big) business usually do a cost analysis of breaking the law. Profit is the goal. It seems that a lot of people forget about that.
Humans have no morals too, and everything they do is for personal profit.
If I sell you a car, and decide I want it back, without a refund (if I even want to sell it back to you), and if take it back - that it's called stealing your car. Same should be done with Sony and courts should punish them enough, so that they won't even think about doing that again, and neither will the other companies.
It's silly that anyone buys from Sony with their track record.
Auto installing rootkit on music CDs, Dropping the promised Linux support for PS3, putting out bad marvel movies, I'm sure there's others but those three are enough for me.
The Sony Marvel movies from the 00s are better than anything Marvel since. Change my mind.
2 replies →
Their exclusive games (The Last of Us, God of War, Returnal, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Bloodborne, etc) are pretty incredible. This is pretty concerning, but few remember the 17 year old rootkit scandal or that they discontinued PS3 support for Linux 12 years ago.
Not more silly than there are laws against theft and murder
IP is silly as fuck, as is your comparison in legitimacy to punishing murder
When it comes to theft or murder there are broad laws. There isn't one law to say that you can't murder using a gun, another to say that you can't murder using a knife, and so on.
In this case, it seems there's a less broad law that applies, where it feels as though a much broader law should apply.
Consumers rarely don't get what they paid for. In these situations it's just often that the merchants bury the fact that they can revoke access to your purchases at any point, and if you don't like it, you can go pound sand. Hence the need to write laws that don't fuck over consumers.
The right to get what you paid for is explicitly granted by law. Before that you’d need to have a bigger stick than the seller to make sure they don’t just run with your money.
Also, money is only valuable because we all agree to pretend it is, because pretending makes it useful.
IP is the root of the silliness
That's a large part of what the entire legal system is for.
It's as old as law itself, isn't it? From the Code of Hammurabi (translation from wikipedia):
> If a merchant should give silver to a trading agent for an investment venture, and he [the trading agent] incurs a loss on his journeys, he shall return silver to the merchant in the amount of the capital sum.
Not quite applicable, but kind of? If I give silver to Sony for a movie and Sony loses the rights to that movie, I want my damn silver back.
You are powerless to accomplish anything in an adverserial situation unless you can mobilize men with weapons to do your bidding. These days it is the court systems that authorize and compel the restoration of your property with the threat of depravation of liberty or purchasing power of the defendant.
4 replies →
Digital sales are license agreements not transfers of ownership
7 replies →
It was very scammy and weasely of execs to ever label those as “purchases” - I guess “sine die merchant-revokable rental” didn’t sound as good. Glad the EU did something about it though.