this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
93 points (98.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43463 readers
757 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sony is Sony is about to delete Mythbusters, Naked and Afraid, and tons of other Discovery shows from PlayStation users’ libraries even if they already “purchased” them.

So, if you bought a DVD licensed by Sony, can they now legally enter your house and take your DVD?

Or can Sony have some sort of DRM that prevents the DVD from playing when Sony loses the license agreement?

I'm just trying to reconcile how digital purchases can be subject to license terms changes, while a DVD apparently can't be.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not accurate at all. If I buy a Blu-ray or a DVD that can't be taken away from me... But if I "buy" a movie online (namely from a streaming service) my access to it can be removed at their discretion. It's happened plenty before, and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is happening again on PlayStation.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What they have the practical power to do and what they should be legally entitled to do are entirely separate things. You can't infer that just because a thug got away with breaking your kmeecaps, his protection racket must've been legal.

[–] chayleaf@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You're right in thinking law is moral, because morals have a historical character, and a class character, much like laws, and are shaped by the ruling class. However, because you ignore class, you can't properly analyze what "law is moral" means. For example, copyright is moral in capitalism, because it "protects artists' rights" and "copying is stealing" and whatnot. Lobbying is moral, because the entire parliamentary system is set up with the goal of letting the rich "invest" into the political "marketplace of ideas".

However, the fact law is moral under capitalism doesn't mean the law is "eternally" moral. Capitalism is harming humanity, so it must go, alongside its morals. You are right that in the future, copyright won't exist. However, for such a change in the political superstructure, according economical changes are required. Until capitalism is gone, there are no reasons for copyright to magically disappear, and a billion reasons for it to keep existing.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

For example, copyright is moral in capitalism, because it “protects artists’ rights” and “copying is stealing” and whatnot.

It's more like: despite the lip service capitalists give to the almighty "Free Market," they've never met a monopoly they didn't like. And copyright is literally nothing more than a government-granted monopoly.

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I'm not saying it's right, but this is what happens when you're sold a physical item compared to the license to view an item, which is what we're now being sold. It's bullshit, but to say what you did in your op is categorically incorrect.