772
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
772 points (93.2% liked)
Technology
59623 readers
1150 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm just shocked how many commenters here somehow seem to think that Sony can choose for their own profit to engage in contracts with mismatched responsabilities - i.e. a short-term contract with WB right next to a much longer term responsability towards retail customer - and not be financially responsible towards their retail customers at one end for the losses that arose from the termination of the very Contract Sony chose to sign at the opposite end.
Imagine if you hire somebody to build you a garden shed and they paid some fly-by-night company for the wood because they were cheaper and that company just to took off with the money. You think they could just legally turn to you, their customer, and say "sorry, we chose some fishy guys for the wood for your shed and they took the money and didnt gave us the wood, so now we'll keep your money and you're not going to get your shed. Bye bye!".
Contract Law isolates Contractual responsabilities in any one contract (including the implied contract of a Retail Sale) to the parties in that contract alone exactly because long term contractual commitments would be de facto impossible in a world were every purchaser also ran risks on every one of their supplier's own contracts as purchasers, in turn having the risks of their suppliers' suppliers' and so on as deep as the chain went.
I think most rational people hate the game rather than Sony directly. We don't care if that's the rules Sony or anyone else has to play by. It's time for the industry to evolve or die.
In-fact I reckon if we see digital retailers reject "selling" digital content because it's not profitable due to end customers rejecting the terms, the studios licensing the content would evolve overnight.
I've been boycotting Sony since the late 90s exactly because they not only played the game in the most anti-consumer way possible, but they very activelly lobbyied for the kind of legislation like the DMCA.
This is maybe one of the companies who spent the most money to make "the game" the incredibly rigged mess it is today.
Your naive "blame the game" reaction is exactly what companies like Sony want: blame the puppets not the puppeteers.
Ever since their Media Production Division took over the management of the company in the 90s (before it was mostly the Engineering side that led it, hence why they were once famous for the exceptional quality of their eletronics) they've very much been reliably acting in the most corrupt, abusive, evil ways possible.
I'm not defending Sony. Though I am also trying to discuss the industry standard practices that they operate in. That said how come Valve lets you keep any purchased game after the license is revoked but nearly every other digital store doesn't or is hit and miss. It's clearly something in the contract/licensing deal.
In other words Sony could choose to play hard ball and only sign contracts that permit continuous use of content after purchasing it. Thereby allowing something closer to actual ownership. Though the question is whether Sony and other digital marketplaces can convince rights holders to agree to such terms in the movie/tv industry.