By that logic piracy cannot cause damages above the retail value of a single copy regardless of how many times it was downloaded because ultimately they only stole 1 game.
They really think we’re that stupid… not without good reasons unfortunately.
Most of those crimes are for poor people anyways.
By that logic piracy cannot cause damages above the retail value of a single copy regardless of how many times it was downloaded because ultimately they only stole 1 game.
Yeah…
The problem is you think the logic is wrong and not the punishment for illegal downloading should be at absolute most, the cost of a personal copy. Even if you made the download 100 times for reinstalls.
Which honestly, is how it works…
The thing is people that don’t seed are assholes, and for every person you seed to, you just distributed it to them. And if/when that can be quantified, that’s when huge charges rack up.
Like there was a porn company that seeded their own videos, logged IPs, and anyone they could identify was sued for distributing to every other person, regardless of if they could be identified. I think that shook out with greatly diminished charges, but I can’t remember
As far as how to fix that,change the laws so instead of user, it’s percent of data. 100% seed ratio would mean you took a copy, and provided a copy. Which would make most piracy not worth the effort of rights holders to enforce. Although Felony theft limits can be as low as $200 in some states and under 1,000 but that being so low due to inflation is a totally different problem.
So you’re saying that you should use Usenet or one click hosters instead. Got it.
You can just turn off seeding…
But like I said, it’s a dick move to download and not seed. So just pay for a vpn and seed.
But we’re all better off properly legislating digital ownership rights, whether or not you personally pirate media.
The problem is too many people just care about games and nothing else. Nothing that is done about just games can fix this, it’s a bigger problem.
If we get to change laws, then I’d rather vote on art experts who decide what gets public funding. The whole “you own this idea” nonsense just isn’t working, and it’s getting worse.
Whaaaat?? Are these lawyers aliens or from another universe?
When I buy a game it says “buy” or “purchase” next to the price. Not “lease”.
They need a more realistic button: “Pay to enjoy it until it disappears with no warning”
I’m sorry to say guys. I’m the only person who owns Lord of the Rings book. It is what it is. I don’t make the rules. If you ask me nicely, I might let you read it.
I’ll give you some old pogs for the rights to Gimli and Legolas I have some… Ideas
I call dibs on shield stairway surfing.
Anyone else out there driving a 2012 Ford F-150?
No, only one person can own it
Lawyers: “That’s so stupid, it just might work!”
Narrator: “It didn’t work.”
I saw that documentary! The quality of the narration was excellent.
Sony hard at work to be the next Nintendo.
Pirate all of their shit. Jailbreak your PS if you can. Do not give them a single penny.
Holy shit, are their lawyers really so incompetent they don’t understand the difference between holding the copyright and owning a copy? They need to get a refund for the Cracker Jacks boxes they got their law school diplomas out of!
I have two $5 bills in my hand. That’s impossible!
Maybe the singular owner could put copies online for others to have
This will fuel more free to play games. You have some fun, I guess spend money if you like, and then move on to the next one and most will run on a laptop or phone that costs the same as the console. And you can do more than just play games with it.
What Sony is ignoring is that this basically erodes trust.
Some will buy it but I’ll just watch a stream.
Laughably easy to refute - I believe I own digital games, and I’ll take any standardized test to prove I’m not stupid. Have your people call my people.
Were these the same geniuses that created the last Wu-Tang album?
You are dumb if you mix the concept of “intellectual property” with actual property.
You don’t “own the game” on physical media either…
You own the physical disc/cartridge, that contains the code to run the game. Not the code on the disc/cartridge. If you “owned” the code on a PS3 disc, that would mean it would be legal for you to make copies and distribute to others.
People don’t understand what the problem is, so they’re complaining about the wrong thing.
What we need, is the rights to the installation media. If a game is going to be removed from a store, consumers should have a period of time where they can get the installation media in a way they can archive.
For games that use a companies servers, that’s a different problem. Saying they need to port it to user servers is a big ask, so maybe something like a minimum support life? Like up front on the box (really, storefronts) “servers guaranteed till at least ____”. Companies would have an incentive to extend that date, because the further out it is, the more likely for late adapters to pay more.
And if a game does better than expected, there’s nothing stopping them from adding more time. If a game has a countdown clock, people can’t really act surprised.
But that’s the cost of “live service” multiplayer games where people playing the game costs resources for the company, even if that’s just keeping servers up for people to play on. If people don’t like it, there’s games that use peer hosting, but that comes with its own issues.
If enough people just buy peer hosted multiplayer games because those don’t have enddates, then we’ll start seeing improvements with it. And that’s better for all of us, because that’s the real solution for the industry.
You are confusing ownership with intellectual property. They are different things. You can absolutely own anything you purchase without the rights to distribute copies. You own the media and its contents when you purchase it. You do not obtain the intellectual property rights to copy and redistribute.
You own the media and its contents when you purchase it.
No, you own the physical media, and the right for one single person to use the contents of that media.
You do not obtain the intellectual property rights to copy and redistribute.
While correct, I have the feeling it’s not what you meant to say.
You don’t understand right to use and right to distribute are two completely separate things
You don’t understand right to use and right to distribute are two completely separate things
Oh I don’t? That’s why I literally explain the difference in my original comment? Do you talk to everyone like that? The condescension is gross. You don’t know anything about me why would you assume my level of understanding?
