this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
858 points (99.8% liked)

News

23406 readers
3491 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill into law that won't stop companies from taking away your digitally purchased video games, movies, and TV shows, but it'll at least force them to be a little more transparent about it.

As spotted by The Verge, the law, AB 2426, will prohibit storefronts from using the words "buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good or alongside an option for a time-limited rental." The law won't apply to storefronts which state in "plain language" that you're actually just licensing the digital content and that license could expire at any time, or to products that can be permanently downloaded.

The law will go into effect next year, and companies who violate the terms could be hit with a false advertising fine. It also applies to e-books, music, and other forms of digital media.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ravhall@discuss.online 154 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Alternatively, make laws protecting digital ownership and the right to resell that ownership on any market.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 77 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, this feels like validating a toxic business model when they should be dismantling it

[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Why would a high profile politician in the United states do something that is for the benefit of their people? Weak leaders do not generally make strong decisions.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 11 points 2 months ago

This will start to protect some people, and bring awareness to the issue, allowing for further regulation in the future, once public demand for it has increased

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

My first thought was that it would be a nightmare verifying who owns what and how to transfer ownership.

Then it occurs to me, could this a legitimate use of blockchain?

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are a ton of legitimate uses for blockchain, but so many scammers loved it that it killed any momentum to use it where it works.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with blockchain technology, but Surprise! the people most interested in unregulated financial systems are thieves and scammers. Who could have guessed.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Each new token needing more computing power is not an issue?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 7 points 2 months ago

This is a constraint designed into bitcoin to produce artificial scarcity so that the volume of tokens doesn't massively inflate and destroy their value. A blockchain doesn't have to operate this way if the goal is to produce unique tokens as identifiers rather than as currency.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

this is how college works too. textbooks are mostly digital e-books now. same price as the print versions, but of course impossible to buy used or sell back, and your license (and access) expire after a year. some of them disable copy and paste and limit printing to a couple pages. oh, you got a book you actually wanted to keep? fuck you.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I remember when this was first starting, the digital copies were like 30% cheaper. A lot of people, including myself, took them up on it because it made most things easier. (Especially when publishers would be coming out with new editions every year and many profs just made the new edition the required one regardless of any substantial differences)

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 months ago

and look how far we've come...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 109 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's way past time for a crackdown in regard to digital ownership. We're living in a digital age now, where digital entertainment products have clearly outpaced physical products. We need to force companies away from the "rental store" mentality they're insisting on. If we're paying the same price for a digital copy of a product as it would be for a physical copy, then we deserve the same protections across the board.

If I buy a movie, music, a book, or a game, I should have the right to save a local copy of it to use, in perpetuity, in any manner I please, not just for as long as the company decides I should be able to or for as long as the company exists.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children)

Not only that, but the ability to transfer or even sell your license. If I can gift or sell a book or DVD, I should be able to do the same with a game or digital movie.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I like how Factorio packages their game. You pay them $35 and then you can download and install on steam, get an installer through the website, or even just get a portable folder containing all of the game files.

Great game by good people.

[–] turbowafflz@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I really wish they would do sales occasionally, I played the demo and really liked it but $35 is just a bit more than I want to spend on a single game

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (5 children)

It's a steal, even at full price, particularly once you account for the various mods.

FYI, I've several friends who veto playing, or even talking about factorio. They can't afford to lose 100s of hours of their lives again to cracktorio, and dont want to be sucked back in again. Take from this what you will.

[–] psoul@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I didn’t know I had an addictive personality until I played factorio. Crack for your brain, it’s crazy.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Most people have an addiction button. The version for geeks and engineers is VERY hard to exploit at scale, to make money. Factorio pushes that button perfectly. It's a sustained dopamine stream that little can match.

On a completely unrelated note. Less than a month now! 😀

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pogbom@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you look at it as dollars per time spent, it'll probably be far better value than the majority of games you could get cheaper. Assuming you like it of course (but if you think you will, you probably will).

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've got over 1700 hours on Factorio, which makes it cost me 2¢ per hour of entertainment

Though it's a bit like drugs in that you really enjoy it at first and eventually you're just trying to get your fix.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Weird how the end stage of capitalism is really just a strange two tiered form of the kind of communism everyone was told to fear. So much for actually owning anything.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 12 points 2 months ago

People love the boot as long as the boot is privately owned.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Communism? Try fraud.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Why isn't this a thing already? I mean, it's USA, companies love to sue against illegal copies. No one got an argument like "I bought it so i was in the assumtion it belongs to me"?

[–] wildn0x@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The big company has more money to lawyer up. If a company can't win, they can drain the plaintiff dry of money through legal fees.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago

Ah right, i forgot the pay to win judicial system of US.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t understand why they don’t just charge both parties the average cost when one side has waaay more legal resources than the other. Seems like such an obvious issue with the legal system that even the founding fathers should have realized if they thought for a second.

Or they did and this is the intended system.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

If anything, that would be worse. Imagine, you sue, and have a single lawyer, on a discount rate. They respond with a team of 100 highly paid lawyers. Your now paying 50-500x what your own lawyer is actually charging. This could also work in both directions.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Fun Fact: If you as an individual bought a game, made a copy, and gave it away then you have done nothing wrong.

Also, downloading an "illegal copy" for yourself is also legal. You have not distributed another person's IP for profit, there are no laws against what you did.

If you sold the copy it would be illegal. If you gave away 500 copies it would be illegal. But creating and sharing a backup is fine.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

no, dumbasses, the law should say "fuck you, if you sell it they own it". not that you're allowed to do whatever the fuck you want after they pay for your product as long as you say so first.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

This may be careful wording to avoid it being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Individual states have limited power to limit contracts. And while this may be a flimsy leg to stand on, SCOTUS may as well be the great American flamingo when it comes to standing on a single shakey leg

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

this is great! now we can argue in court, "if it cannot be owned, how can it be stolen?"

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I feel like the Magic The Gathering Online rule should be in play: if somebody sells a digital product you should be able to have them ship you a physical copy of the product at the cost of shipping it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 2 months ago

How about making a law so we do?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This should have been done decades ago, and I think law was strong enough decades ago to make it happen, it's just that district attorneys didn't want to piss off large businesses.

If a company shows on their website that they are selling you something, you as a buyer have the reasonable expectation that you've actually purchased it, and through that purchase, you can do all the things that you would with anything you own. When that's not true, they haven't actually sold you something. They've rented you something, and they know it, and that's a deceptive business practice.

Which is to say, I'm happy to see some improvement on potential enforcement for false advertising, but the reality is I'm not too optimistic that people will seriously follow up on it because they already had a couple decades to do so.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“Spotify Music License Dispensary”

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Revokable for any reason at any time, temporary, non tangible, non transferable, forced arbitration, License Dispensary*

*conditions apply

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

If paying for it isn’t ownership, then pirating it isn’t theft.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I wonder how many Steam users are going to get a startling wake up call. For all the praise it gets, Steam was a frontrunner in labeling buy and purchase what is essentially an unlimited time rental that can expire when your free subscription service does.

They can ban and suspend your account for, say, adding the "wrong" CD key into your account (they reserve the right to ban false CD keys) or accepting gifts (if fraud ends up being associated with it), along with all your other purchases if they wanted to, and that would be potentially thousands and thousands of dollars down the drown. Steam could collapse, or it could be passed on to a new CEO that say, sold it to EA, and they could decide to put conditions on that subscriptions or even to empty inactive accounts as they did to their own service. They could even just simply start enforcing their guidelines for bans to their fullest extent. Oh, and each game developer can issue a game ban based on their own code of conduct.

It's funny how little interest there has been to treat your purchases as actual digital goods, except by the NFT crowd who are just in it for the money. Actually, ignore that, if anything, most NFT implementations as of now are treated more as subscription options with a buzzword than a digital good, too. So as an aside, it's also funny how the blockchain crowd avoids using the blockchain as a digital good and uses it as confidence game cash grabs instead.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Good news is that if more and more places start passing laws making it harder and harder for companies to do that, valve will just start allowing you to own the games for real.

I say this because valve has always bent like a reed when legislation forces them to make their platform more consumer-friendly

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And the companies that pull this kind of shit have already amended their terms of service that nobody ever reads. More public grandstanding without actually doing anything. More failure theater.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

"I refuse to accept progress if it's not perfect progress"

Is what you're effectively stating here.

Cmon, really? I have this argument with my toddler when he asks for something like a rip off a loaf of bread. He wants the whole loaf, he can't have the whole load, so he gets a choice: The piece you can have, or nothing.

So. Would you rather have this progress, or nothing? That's your choice, and right now it sounds a whole lot like you would rather have no progress?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] index@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

imagine buying something and not own it

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›