https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/#tyler-james-hill
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/
Sonys license to provide discovery content is ending, so anyone who purchased that content loses access to it, even though they "own" it.
Never buy digital from Sony, they are shit for consumer rights.
If you ever bought a movie on the PSP back in the day, you could only download the movie once, and had to rebuy to download it, even if you "Purchased" it
From https://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/psp/current/psn/store/purchase.html
I have games I bought on my PS3, and using the same account, those same games do not show on the PS4 and PS5, they want me to buy, even though I am using the same account.
Fuck Sony
If you purchase something and you can't just download it, move it wherever you want and watch it there with no limitations, you didn't purchase it.
Tell you what, I don't really care either way. I currently have three separate streaming services. Netflix, Disney and Amazon. Including a patreon monthly subscription and one only fans I really like for a total of five.
However I want to watch The Big Bang Theory. I'm just not willing to subscribe to yet another unaffiliated streaming service for one TV show!
Just for the sake of organization and convenience I travel the high seas for the show I want to watch!
It's not that I don't necessarily want to pay or I want to steal the intellectual property it's just that there's no significant incentive for me to watch the Big bang theory outside of the way that I'm currently going to acquire it.
You deserve to be in jail.
Not because of the copyright infringement or whatever, just your choice in what to watch.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=8ib889nSZVU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Simplify that to "Piracy isn't stealing". Copyright infringement (so-called piracy) is very different from stealing.
Sure, if "buying" isn't permanent despite assurance it was at the time, then copyright infringement is even more justified. But, copyright infringement isn't and has never been stealing.
it's a bit hypocritical that big companies complain about piracy when they are no better than Blackbeard, xxx-sama and Akainu combined.
i mean, they have hijacked the system so they can set the rules, their lawyers are law crackers, they take advantages of artists to buy their copyright for pennies and making millions of it, they scam us with DLC's, fees, dark patterns; they steal our private info, images, text creations, etc. to sell it or use it for AI development; and they also limit our access to the internet and technology by banning third party apps, modding, using anything related to their patents...
sorry but if i was a law enforcer, they would be the first ones i would chase after.
Noo piracy isn't stealing I'm a lawful citizen
vs.
Yes I'm a thief got a problem with that
Are we on the same boat?
Yes I don't care if it's stealing. Or maybe I do, stealing from Disney makes it more enjoyable to watch my action packed comedy superhero movie
This writer seems like a proper neck beard. I 100% agree with most of what they say, but this feels like it's straight out of 4chann
Edit: I read a few other articles of his and watch a few of his videos/interviews. This article is an extreme side of him apparently. I still think he is extremely socially awkward, he can't hold eye contact for longer than a millisecond and struggles to answer questions in less than twenty words.
I do fully agree with almost everything I've heard him say. I just don't like the way he says it.
He does a lot of work as special advisor for EFF and also know for the invention of the word Enshittification
He's very anti-DRM, so much that he doesn't sell his books on Amazon, because they refuse to sell them DRM free
He's always worth a listen, for instance on This week in tech
Yeah, I'd rather not if he talks like he writes. Again, I am fully on board with his message, but he writes like someone who doesn't know how to have a conversation with another person.
He has an interesting blogging format as he automatically splits his posts and shares them on microblogging instances. That explains the weird staccato prose.
I'd probably write in a staccato style as well, if I was blogging from a high altitude balloon.
He is the nerdiest of the nerds, but I wouldn't call him a neckbeard.
I met him once. Very nice guy.
He is the nerdiest nerd ever. That's why he's long seen what is going on and has been trying to save us.
So what? Software freedom is more of a meritocracy than most things (but not entirely). They had Richard freaking Stallman who eats his toenails while giving lectures.
Do I like the lease model that we have been living with for the past 30-40 years? No. I can't argue it is fundamentally broken (see "30-40 years") but it does lead to corner cases like the insanity impacting all streaming services at this point. And that is why I love "physical media" that I can rip and put on a plex server.
But I hate this "argument" almost as much as I hate "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism". It has nothing to do with either a philosophical discussion or an attempt to make things better and is just a way for people to feel good about taking the easy way out.
Because, much like with "piracy is for preservation of video games", it begins with the false premise of what the media being consumed is. We aren't talking about a book (... except when we are). We are talking about something a lot closer to a stage show at a theatre. You don't own every production of Hamlet ever made just because you bought a ticket once. Hell, you don't even own every production by the 14th Street Acting Troupe. You own that night's production where Wendy's boob popped out of her top and Sean couldn't score any blow before the show and so forth.
This argument is basically saying that there are no moral or ethical* concerns with holding up a camcorder in a theatre or outright jumping the ticket stand because you wouldn't own it anyway.
And before people start claiming that it is digital media so it is always the same, it isn't. Remember how we apparently went from Game of Thrones being THE GREATEST HOUR OF TELEVISION EVER MADE during Battle of the Bastards to it being THE ABSOLUTE WORST PIECE OF DOGSHIT EVER CREATED when nobody could see what was going on because all the blacks of the ice zombie war were crushed worse than all the redshirts Jon-boy climbed on in the previous episode? HBO Max isn't (entirely) paying for the ability to rewatch a guy fuck his aunt any time we want (heh, who remembers all the sex shows on HBO?). It is about being part of that discussion. It is about "experiencing" people who have never seen a war movie that didn't star Channing Tatum lose their mind over horror. It is about being part of the discussion on what HDR even is. And that is why a lot of film makers really dislike how many people will never see a movie in theatres and instead watch it on a cell phone screen.
But also: If you want to pirate, just fucking pirate. I have a set of "rules" that I use to decide when I pirate versus buy stuff, but I am not going to pretend I am morally righteous for having the 90s Battletech cartoon on my plex server.
Which mostly speaks to people being REALLY immature and incapable of acknowledging they do good and bad. The discussion is always "this isn't piracy" rather than "Who fucking cares if it is piracy?". Because even thinking for a moment that you did a "bad" (and then not caring) is beyond people.
As for why I wish people would reassess and actually critically think? Mostly because the bog standard neckbeard "Achshually, I am morally righteous and smarter than you" is fucking annoying. But partly because that is how you actually get feedback out there. I've gotten the Netflix "sorry to see you go, can you tell us why?" card a few times. And every time I answer a variation of "You fund awesome shows that I want to watch and I have no problem paying 20 or even 40 bucks for a season of The Last Kingdom. But I am not going to pay that every month. Which puts me into the weird case of deciding I will buy a month of Hulu instead because, even if their shows aren't as good, they have enough of them to 'justify' the month.". Which probably goes in a bin, but hopefully leads to thoughts on whether Glass Onion should get a blu-ray release and so forth.
*: Remember kids, ethics are not morality. And if you do have an ethical system that justifies this, cool. But that is the kind of thing that takes serious thought and constant reevaluation.
So you're saying you want one show, and you pay subscription to see it, but then, if you want to watch it again, you have to pay subscription again, and at that point the "paying subscription for a show" model kinda breaks.
I absolutely didn't get your argument on digital media. Film is not a stage performance - the former is recorded once, the latter needs to be manually recreated every time. Every performance is a lot of labor, and it needs to be paid. Every film view is literally nothing.
And yes, I personally have an ethical system strictly opposed to this, and, really, business/corporate greed in general, and I don't think I'm alone here. And in the digital space, we can pack a punch.
"Film" is "recorded once" (not really, but that gets into the editing side of things and is too in the weeds) but re-releases have been a thing for as long as there have been films. A couple years back I read a REALLY interesting (scholarly) article discussion how a lot of the early black and white movies were edited due to World War 1 and 2 and the politics surrounding that. In some cases by the theatre themselves, which led to unique versions.
I already referenced game of thrones which was 100% about "the experience". Much like Lost and How I Met Your Mother before it, a bad ending largely soured the entire fanbase on the show. Which is why it was so interesting to go from "This is the greatest tv show ever made" to "fuck this garbage" literally within a week. If you weren't watching it at the time (piracy or subscribed), you will never experience that. Same with How I Met Your Mother where "Robots vs Wrestlers" led to a lot of people realizing how the show would end and it recontextualizing all the flash forwards... to the actual ending where now everyone was angry and hated Ted more than we hate Ross. That was more like a year (two? I forget just how troubled the last season was) but it was fascinating to watch all the diehard fans realize that The Mother was going to die (and our hearts breaking for Ted when he gives that speech about wanting a few more months with her) to being immensely angry that The Mother died... in large part because Cristin Milioti managed to live up to all the hype and we grew to love her just as much as Ted did.
Which... is theatre. We forget it, but the Shakespeare that we read in high school was actually about contemporary events of the early 1600s. So much of media is a product of its time (even most books). "Historically", this was "handled" through new releases. Maybe you first watched it as a VHS. Then you bought the DVD five years later and suddenly decided that Revenge of the Sith was actually a good movie. Then you bought the blu-ray another ten years later and question your own intelligence. And, if I hadn't picked a Disney movie as my example, you would buy the Criterion Collection in a few years and have a new experience with it. And you would be "okay" with that because you are getting different extras or visual quality and so forth.
So that is why I don't think the "lease" model precludes paying for content. Buying the VHS of Ep1 doesn't mean you own the UHD of it (damn, that is what I could have used to avoid needing to Criterion this tortured metaphor).
Where this DOES break down is with the online services either shuttering or losing the rights to stuff (see Sony and Discovery). But... even that is kind of comparable to the media formats. Who actually still owns a working VCR (that doesn't watch OAN all day...)? And, even though I can just as easily watch a DVD as a UHD, I am generally going to re-purchase "physical" media because watching upscaled 480i is not my idea of a good time and I would rather it be based off of the original film than whatever DLSS feels like doing.
Which all gets back to making things better. Rather than just say "I can't play my VHS on my playstation so I am morally righteous to pirate everything", we need to have these discussions as a society. Because the 1080p copy of Powers Season 1 that I have on my sony account is probably never going to get any better, but it is still an ongoing resource drain for Sony. And the old model of "upscale it or release new BTS footage" doesn't make a lot of sense... as we move all BTS footage to youtube anyway.
As for ethics: Lemmy is a horrible venue for it. But I will still assert that anyone whose ethical outcome is "it is good for me to pirate anything I want" that doesn't also include "because nothing I create is my own" (which actually negates this entire argument to begin with...), at best, has a low amount of ethical maturity. And those people would benefit from actually studying the various philosophies to better themselves.
I still don't get where you're going with that. Pointing out that in the past physical media did a little bit of the same, draining fans of money with re-releases that just added what's been cut or were enhanced in other ways? Then that's same as, say, DLCs: a small amount of work draining much more money than it's worth, just as means of squeezing more cash from fans while making the base thing affordable for a wide audience. It's just about maximizing profit way beyond the point of payback. Greed, essentially, and nothing else.
As per How I Met Your Mother, I kinda felt the ending to be somewhat natural, even though it seems like they didn't think it through well to begin with. And yes, it's super cruel to kill Ted's wife - she's extremely nice and suits him better and I get your feelings. But this is also a very logical plot twist, and the ending feels...like it should've been. I just knew it'd end up there.
And as per ethics, everything I produce (I work in scientific field) I hold no rights to, and they either belong to a company, sadly (on one job that actually pays me enough to survive), or are in the public domain (open access scientific articles, available for everyone in full text). I wish it would all be the latter. I do not want to retain copyright on anything I make, and I wish for it in general to be abolished. And until that's not the case, I'm comfortable breaching it forcefully.
The point is that all media is transient. Whether it is a book you own (that may have yellowed because even the hardcovers used the shitty paper) or a movie you are watching.
To put it more personally: Let's pretend that you get paid for journal publications (because it is the easiest to abstract. For something more realistic imagine I am talking about your field's equivalent of processes, equipment, etc). Your employer paid you to get four papers published last year, and you did. Awesome. Except now we are ten years in the future, you work somewhere else, and that same boss wants you to futz with the latex to change the format for a book someone is writing or update them to the web format for the journal or whatever.
You, rightfully, tell your former boss to go fuck himself and that if he wants you to do it he can pay you for it.
Except... if there is no expectation that you are going to provide lifetime support for those papers, why would he have paid you in the first place? Should have just stolen your work and stiffed you on the bill.
Same here. There is this expectation of a lifetime license of something that we have more or less never had. Even when it was just fat white dudes in wigs using a printing press.
Your analogy is not entirely correct.
As a viewer, I do not demand producers to create remakes or enhanced versions. They do it themselves - to take profits off relatively easy work, compared to, you know, producing a new great film or whatnot.
The correct comparison would be me writing a book and selling it, and then writing an appendix to this book and selling it separately with a solid price tag.
If I'm an honest author, I'd post updates freely, so that people who already own the book would have important data and wouldn't use incorrect results from there. It would affect my reputation if I'd do otherwise, too.
In my real case, I can publish an update, and yes, it will be free. This is a standard for scientific articles, open or not, and many even have easy links for version updates, containing all corrections.
And my boss pays me because otherwise I wouldn't be able to produce the first result to begin with.
Also, the very idea of digital media is to be accessible and not transient. You can save and backup data and it will be there, in its original form, forever. Updates in art are entirely optional and often unasked for.
Sorry dude, your analogy makes no sense. You're the one saying you owe lifetime support.
Sorry dude, your analogy makes no sense. You're the one saying you owe lifetime support.
Can we just let people do whatever they want as long as they don’t kill people? If you want to pirate go on idc about your reasons, if you want to buy/rent/subscribe then go on idc about your philosophy, people is having too much time to debate this
So you want everyone to be able to go about their business except people who want to discuss things? Why don't you go about your business? And how do people discussing things on the internet stop you?
Totally, if you want to profit gauge from the population, that's you're thing. These executives worked hard getting into the privileged position they're in, they should be allowed to take advantage of it. People are just whiny right?