• @cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1706 months ago

    If the content is not stored locally and DRM free, then you don’t own it. Don’t pay for content that you can’t own. 🏴‍☠️

    • Guildo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      566 months ago

      Is there any platform or medium where I can buy locally stored and DRM-free software? Even if I buy a game on disc I am fucked, cause most games need updates. I can only name GOG.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
        link
        fedilink
        English
        656 months ago

        Given the recent controversy, it calls into question the definition of the word ‘buy.’

        GOG is the only one that I know of too.

        • @erwan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          126 months ago

          It’s hard to find quality games in the sea of single dev weekend projects on itch io…

          • @tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            36 months ago

            If you see potential in one and their game is open source then consider contributing in some way (not as in money but honest feedback helps).

      • @lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Is there any platform or medium where I can buy locally stored and DRM-free software?

        Steam, but you’ll have to manually search around the forums to see which games does it and which doesn’t. It’s not exactly a well advertised feature, but integration of Steamworks copy protection is optional. Most of the games that are DRM-free on GOG are DRM-free on Steam too.

      • TAG
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -116 months ago

        Humble (the company that sells Bundles) has some games listed as DRM free games in their store. Never bought individual games from them, but I have gotten DRM free games in their bundles.

        Also, fuck GOG. They are owned by CD Project Red, the piece of shit lawyers who trademarked the term cyberpunk.

        • @healthetank@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          106 months ago

          Pretty sure they bought the trademark from the company who owned it previous (for a 1980s era board game if I recall correctly). They bought it to prevent shitty 2077 clones with the same name from popping up. I haven’t heard of them actively pursuing copyright infringement against others who use cyberpunk.

          • @wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            66 months ago

            2077 and its spinoffs are literally set in the boardgame universe and an updated rulebook was released at the same time as the game.

            2077 and Edgerunners are just stories set in the setting and universe from the boardgame. The Arasaka Tower Heist, Johnny Silverhand, Morgan Blackhand, all the corps, gangs, and cyberware are right from the boardgame. The story had heavy involvement from the creator of the board game as well. For fucks sake he does the voice of Maximum Mike on the in game radio.

            Did people not realize that Cyberpunk 2077 is just another Witcher situation, but this time the original author wanted to stay a part of things?

          • TAG
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -46 months ago

            Just because they are not openly pursuing enforcement does not mean that they will not. Just the audacity to trademark a generic term widely used in media discussion makes me think that they are being represented by scumbag lawyers.

        • @yamanii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          66 months ago

          What are you even talking a out, there are plenty of games with cyberpunk in the tittle on steam.

          • TAG
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -36 months ago

            And CD Project Red has the right to sue those publishers.

            Of course, if they do and the other side chooses to fight, they will have to explain to a judge why the trademark was granted to them despite a mountain of prior art describing games as cyberpunk.

        • @wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          56 months ago

          The fuck are you talking about wrt Cyberpunk? It was already the trademarked name of the boardgame that all this new shit draws from, the boardgame that coined the fucking term in the first place.

        • Guildo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          296 months ago

          Have you played any new games recently?

          • @echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -296 months ago

            Yes, most games are better with patches. Most games do not need patches. And most games come out just fine, the big AAAs that push consoles often have a patch that is worth caring about.

            I played through the most recent yakuza game without a patch recently. Was great.

            • Guildo
              link
              fedilink
              English
              116 months ago

              Ok, if you think most games don’t need them, then I hope that you’re enjoying bugs. 10/20 years ago games were unfinished, too - but you were able to download and SAVE an update. This is nearly impossible, now.

              • @echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -166 months ago

                I literally gave you an example of a game I played recently, without patches and zero bugs. Please read the whole thing before leaving a comment.

                The quality of comments on lemmy has really gone downhill the past few months, it’s about reddit quality now and getting worse

        • @theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          Not much of a gamer lately, huh?

          Updates are always an option now, so games are no longer released in a very stable state. And by not very stable, I mean “crashes immediately with X company hardware”, “frame rate drops to 1 frame/s in certain areas”, or “quest line is bugged and incompletable”

          Day one updates generally aren’t optional… With a publisher who values polish like Nintendo? Generally they’re playable, but a bit rough. On average, they’re literally impossible to play through. It’s a real problem in modern gaming

            • @theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago

              Ok, but that’s Yakuza. Their team is great and cares a lot about quality. They’re hardly a representative example, but…

              I just scanned through their update log. A week after launch, they fixed a crash when you deleted a picture from the photo album. Another couple weeks later, they fixed one where the game would crash intermittently. A few weeks later, they fixed a bug where the game wouldn’t boot if you unlocked all the achievements. And it keeps going, more than a year later they fixed a crash during a quest if you have an inconsistent frame rate

              There’s a lot more, but I just scanned through looking for crash fixes - there’re also many issues with graphics that would make the game unplayable with certain setups

              Also, I noticed the first patch is 1.02, making me believe the “unpatched” game actually included the day 1 patch

              Maybe the release version worked for you, but it didn’t work for everyone (or maybe your version included patches you’re unaware of)

              And again, this is an example of a highly polished game - most games are far, far worse

              • @echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Old games had crasher bugs too, and even had new versions :o. 99% of games release in a state where 99% of people will never notice an issue.

                Most games are not “far worse”, you are looking at the high profile exceptions and extrapolating rather than looking at the actual real landscape of releases.

                • @theneverfox@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 months ago

                  It’s entirely possible that we play very different games, but I’m a gamer programmer, I read patch notes and listen to retrospectives recreationally

                  I never said games are far worse, I think that’s true for AAA gaming (for different reasons), but modern indie games beat the crap out of the bargain bin games from a couple decades ago

                  My point is this - OTA updates change how software is developed. It used to cost a lot of money to fix if you release it with breaking bugs, and there were several system builds to test on.

                  Now? There’s an infinite number of configurations you can support with one engine and minimal porting - hell, Nvidia regularly patches their drivers to support specific games better.

                  The cost of extensive qa has skyrocketed, and the consequences of bugs at launch has plummeted.

                  If that doesn’t convince you, go pick 5 random games released this year on steam, and look at their update logs. All 5, maybe 4 if you’re lucky , will have patches around release time for major issues.

                  It’s not because they’re lazy or bad devs, it’s because QA could take months or years to tell you what user feedback would get you in 48 hours after launch

    • @sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      216 months ago

      I bought DRM-free TV episodes from Google Play (IIRC). Everything was great until codecs got updated a couple of years later and the videos were suddenly jerky to the point of unwatchability.

      Even when I own it, there’s no guarantee I get to keep it.

    • Pxtl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      136 months ago

      Uh, that’s practically all software and games these days.

      • @cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        146 months ago

        In this case Sony is taking away TV shows that people purchased. They can be purchased on physical media that will be playable as long as you have the disc. The DRM on DVD and Bluray discs can be easily removed to make backups that will play on anything forever.

        As for games, everything on GOG is DRM free. They have downloads for the installers so you can keep a backup copy to install decades from now even if GOG is long gone by then.

    • @lloram239@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If the content is not stored locally and DRM free, then you don’t own it.

      Have fun managing tens of TB of backups. I have given up on that quite a while ago, DRM-free is just not a practical for the amount of digital content you collect over the years. It’s a nice to have thing that comes in really handy sometimes (e.g. watching movies on unsupported device like VR headsets), but it’s not a solution for digital ownership. In some ways it’s actually worse, as you can’t practically resell DRM-free copies, as you don’t have a proof of ownership. You’ll also miss out on updates for new technologies (codecs, OS versions, etc.).

      This needs a legislative solution or some NFT-like thing that gives you a certificate like “You own this, feel free to pirate if we go out of business”(digital signed by company).

  • @RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1206 months ago

    Sony understands only one language… MONEY. I stopped buying their products since they installed a root kit decades ago in my computer to prevent it from ripping my legally bought CDs to my computer. I had to reinstall windows to get rid of that virus. Never again! And all my electronics were Sony back then

    • Tygr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      666 months ago

      Hey, just wanted to say I’m glad a few of us remember the rootkit fiasco. I still won’t buy Sony products today.

    • @speaker_hat@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      They do something similar on their smart TVs - it’s not possible to run Kodi with torrent streaming plugins, they block it on purpose.

      • gila
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        How is it blocked? Could you work around it with a debrid service? i.e no torrent protocol

        • @speaker_hat@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I didn’t further investigated it, however I remember that the Kodi remote app port worked, but the torrent streaming port (Elementum specifically) didn’t.

          While on the Xiaomi Mi Box S it worked.

    • FauxPseudo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -16 months ago

      A) which CD did you buy that had the Sony rootkit? B) decades ago? No. It’s only been 18 years.

  • @loki_d20@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    696 months ago

    What I love about this whole thing is that it’s not just Sony’s fault but they’re getting all the blame because WB would pull all their future content if Sony bad-mouthed them.

    • @Throwaway4669332255@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      816 months ago

      Sony choose to not offer refunds. Sony knew the contract when they agreed to sell the content. When something gets pulled from steam I can still download and install it.

      • @atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        How much of that money is theirs to refund? A portion of that sale went to WB? Why is WB not being asked to give a refund?

        • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Sony entered in a contractual relationship with their customers and by Law the responsability ends there.

          If you pay somebody to build you a garden shed and after 5 months of nothing happenning you complain and the builder can just say “sorry, the fly-by-night wood supliers whe paid for the wood just took of with our money, so you’re not going to get a shed and we’ll keep your money”, is that’s alright?!

          Imagine what would it do to Trade and Business in general if any supplier could legally screw a customer over because they themselves chose to to engage a fishy entity as their own supplier who screwed them, so they just passed on that loss legally to all their costumers.

          No, the way things work is that each contractual relationship is isolated from all others, so Sony got full freedom to chose what kind of contract they signed with WB and what contract they “signed” with their retail customers (note that retail sales are implied Contracts and there are legally mandatory implied clauses in any contracts with retail customers, covering for example legally mandated guarantees periods) - likely profiting a lot by chosing the short-term commitment with WB rather than one that tied WB for, say, 20 years - and any mismatch of obligations that might arise from that is entirelly the responsability of Sony.

          Sony got to keep the profits from their own choices of licensing contracts and now it’s up to them to make up for the losses derived from the consequences that choice, on other contracts were they themselves were acting as the supplier.

          • @atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You should go read the licensing agreement. For all the companies, not just Sony because like I said before they all have done this. WB would sue Sony into the ground for breech of contract if they didn’t remove those shows. They’re doing what they are legally obligated to do. I’m not advocating for letting sony off the hook here. I’m saying this will continue to happen every time a license holder decides to cut out the middleman and make their own streaming service, and unless you hold those license holders accountable it will keep happening because it is legal.

            This has happened to date with Sony at least once before, Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, and at least half a dozen other streaming services. Nobody ever wants to hold the supplier liable. And your apology analogy doesn’t work. The people got their streamed media. The product was delivered. The license to enjoy that media was for an unspecified time, which has now come to an end because the license holder of that media has decided they don’t want you to have it in that form anymore. They’re the bad guy here. In the event that you say bought physical discs, and they were never delivered because shortly after you made your order, the company you bought from lost the right to sell them they would refund you because they themselves would be refunded when they sent all that physical media back to the supplier. But in this case that’s not what’s happening. So it’s not a one for one analog.

            • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              06 months ago

              Ultimatelly it depends on the local laws of each country.

              In plenty of countries, in Agreements with Retail Customers, there are by Law various things which if present in the Agreement are considered invalid hence null and void. Also there are mandatory “clarity” and “upfront” criteria for certain kinds of Agreements terms.

              So not only would Sony have to have in the User Agreement a clause or clauses covering the possibility that purchased viewing rights might be unilaterally withdrawn at any time by Sony, it would have to be in a form considered legally valid in a Legal Jurisdiction (i.e. such clause has to be valid and it has to obbey local regulations on clarity and proeminence and in an User Agreement which is actually valid (EULAs are not valid in most of the World because they are only presented post-sale).

              Of course in the “Fuck You Plebes” United States, pretty much everything goes - unless proven otherwise after somebody spent millions in a court case - so an obscure clause in an EULA de facto suffices in pretty much all but the State were Sony America has its HQ.

              • @atrielienz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                16 months ago

                There is. That’s what I’m telling you. The agreement between the customer and Sony stipulates that the license can be revoked by the license holder at any time and in that case their purchases will not be reimbursed. That language is there specifically to protect them.

                But either way you’re failing to take the main point into account which is that WB is not facing backlash for this, but Sony is. Both of them should face this backlash together.

                “SONY grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license to use the SOFTWARE solely in connection with your compatible device (including, but not limited to, SONY’s products which the SOFTWARE is embedded in or bundled with) (“DEVICE”) solely in accordance with this EULA and the usage instructions as may be made available to you by SONY or the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS. SONY and the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS expressly reserve all rights, title and interest (including, but not limited to, all intellectual property rights) in and to the SOFTWARE that this EULA does not specifically grant to you.”

                The license is revoked and is not transferable. Believe me when I say that none of the companies that have had this issue previously have reimbursed their customers in any countries that I can find due to riders like this.

                This is an article from the last time this happened with Sony.

                https://www.pcmag.com/news/studio-canal-movies-purchased-on-playstation-store-get-deleted-aug-31#:~:text=This means that anyone who,for the content being removed.

                • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  TL;DR summary: WB had a contract with Sony, both of which have expensive legal teams and knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, so Sony knowingly chose the cheaper option (a shorter lock-in of the right to make that content available). Sony had contracts (implied and possibly with an agreement, part or all of which might not even be valid in various legal jurisdictions due to Consumer Protection Legislation) between legally-well-armed Sony and zero-legal-knowledge retail customers which, at minimum was portrayed by Sony in so unclear terms (at worse, purposefully to deceive) that said zero-legal-knowledge retail customers thought they were buying something when contractually it was a rental. How exactly would WB - who negotiated with a legal expert counterparty who knew exactly what they were doing - to blame rather than Sony - who took advantage of the legal naivity of retail customers and quite possibly is leveraging the high costs of legal action against them so as not to have to refund said customers? The legally expert and very well funded counterparty - Sony - taking advantage of a non-expert and much less well funded counterparty - retail customers - seems a vastly most likely place for shennennigans than the one between two well funded companies with their own legal experts, Sony and WB.

                  Sony chose to sign a contract with WB where it did not lock-in WB to certain responsabilities for a large time period - say 20 years - and instead chose a shorter time period (which both Business 101 and Asset Pricing Theory indicate as a cheaper option - locking-in certain rights contractually tends to cost more the longer the lock-in period) and per what you say, covered its liability on the client side with clausules in the user licence agreement that essentially meant they could take away any content their customer purchased.

                  Even putting aside the legality of those clauses and of the EULA itself (if* it was presented to the client after the client paid, it’s legally deemed is void and null per the legislation in most of the World because it’s considered an attempt at changing the terms of a cont