Technology

58492 readers

4468 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

781

PlayStation keeps reminding us why digital ownership sucks (www.theverge.com)

submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy to c/technology@lemmy.world

178 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 77 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

We need to stop calling it digital "ownership"! You don't get to own anything as a customer on these platforms, because rights that can be taken away on a whim are no rights at all.

[–] ultra@feddit.ro 78 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Arr-men to that!

[–] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 1 points 10 months ago

Whatsab!

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

In the case of pc platforms like GOG, and itchio, if you get a drm free version of a title, theres nothing the company can do to both stop you from storing it on an external storage (or multiple) if you wanted. They wouldnt be able to revoke it if its a single player game.

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

Works for a lot of Steam games too.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Technically, you still don't own it. You have a licence that they can revoke at will. They just can't enforce it.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What makes you say so?

GoG about page explicitly talks about owning, and terms even explicitly mention advance notification so you can download Dr free versions if they will ever become unavailable.

GoG terms do not qualify purchases as temporary access licenses - only to the degree of servicing downloads as long as possible and without other limitation.

We don't believe in controlling you and your games. Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You know that's the exception to the general trend though right? GoG has good terms, most others do not.

Physical media still is a better way to go than digital whenever possible.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Commenter specifically talked about gog and itch. Other commenter then replied you wouldn't own it [there].

The comment chain specifically moved away from "general trend".

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

because rights that can be taken away on a whim are no rights at all

They're rights to temporary access. A contacted temporary right.

I agree with your main point that it's not ownership though.

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What you're talking about is being allowed to use something or being tolerated, that's different from having a right. A temporary right is a real right for a specified time frame, but here it would just be "until I decide you don't".