youtu.be
tl;dw
He's not wrong that the "Games as a Service" model often violates the law. But it's rarely, if ever, actual fraud, which requires an intentional deception for unfair gain. Instead, it's much more likely that GaaS practices violate consumer protection and/or contract laws, and mostly in individual cases.
Ross was wrong. Time to give up.
Other urls found in this thread:
arstechnica.com
dmlp.org
ea.com
judgments.fedcourt.gov.au
accc.gov.au
cnet.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>globe earth
>shilling your own videos on Yea Forums
That's gonna be a Yikes from me, dawg.
of course he's wrong, people just want to believe he is right because they rightfully hate the concept of games as a service
The fraud argument is actually strong. Most online games never advertise the risk of server shutdowns. More importantly, the user agreement and EULA warning of potential for server closure (or even things like account bans) most often appears after sale, after breaking the seal, when starting the game for the first time. You are buying one product, only to be informed after sale that it is actually a different product.
Oh okay
When you say so
>But it's rarely, if ever, actual fraud
Amazing, who could of thought about it.
Worst part is that he was wrong about his license bullshit. You still don't own game only license to use the game.
>buy a car
>it depreciates in value and eventually stops working
wtf nobody told me this would happen this is fucking fraud
Wow some fucking 2 bit nigger says that it's not actualy, literaly fraud, as if we didn't know that already.
But it should be because game companies are niggers
shit analogy
>He's not wrong that the "Games as a Service" model often violates the law
That's enough for me. Fraud didn't sound like the right word for it, but it was pretty damn close.
The fact is that there hasn't been any major legislation about this because boomers who may get fucked by this are too retarded to see they're getting scammed and the people that are aware don't have the capital nor time to go against some mega corp like Microsoft or, hell, even someone smaller like EA or Ubisoft.
I'm just hoping that people actually listen to Ross about this.
>buy car
>defect put in on purpose by the manufacturer leads the car to break down
>this isn't fraud
is this a joke?
>Buy a car
>Can stops working because you didn't update your firmware
Now this is pod racing.
In the US, EU, AUS you do own the game.
software as service in general is pure cancer
don't let those corporations centralize everything around their clouds
>buy a car
>making parts for it after 3 years is no longer financially viable for the maker so they visit each buyer and destroy the car
There, fixed your stupid shit.
No you do not, by that I mean you own a right to play a game, it doesn't matter where you get the game you just own the right to play it. Reason you can't make more copies is copyright law. But you can get your friends copy 100% legally and play it if your copy is broken.
It's not just about whether it is technically a license, or isn't technically a license.
Either way, there is still laws protecting the consumer and a consumer which purchases a license of this type still have protections and a 'good' of sorts.
A business can't just fuck you because it's titled as a license.
Gee if that's the case then why not sell everything on a license by license basis. Seems that with only giving a license you basically have free reign to do whatever you want to that product post purchase.
Really makes me think, huh.
You're really bad at analogies, Caleb.
The software you purchased and you hold belongs to you. What you are talking about its renting the IP.
You can do whatever the hell you want with your copy, its yours.
What isn't allowed is use the IP to gain money without consent or an agreement with the producer.
Bought games software are classified as purchased goods, not a rented service.
That is what is the root of the problem, games are sold as goods while companies hold the power to the service that allows people to operate them.
Its a seller still dictating what the product is going to be even after the legal monetary exchange for the product already occurred.
With selling licenses you can do more, like unplug your product, John Doe does this for example. You own a tractor but also own a silence to use their software and that license don't work if you fix your 2mil investment by yourself.
>renting the IP
NO, You have NON EXCLUSIVE LISENCE!
>You can do whatever the hell you want with your copy, its yours.
You can destroy it, use it, sell it. That's about the length of what you can do with it,. Can't copy, Can't sell said copy.
Kikes wetdream.
It's basically gaming publishers are wanted to lump the negatives for the consumer of them purchasing a good, while not having to upkeep the responsibilities involved in providing a service.
I agree with Lenny, it's not fraud, but there is definitely some loose interpretations and purposeful boundary pushing and law ignoring going on here by publishers, and to be honest don't care which was the pendulum swings in view on this, I just don't want publishers to have their cake and eat it any longer as they're greedy cunts.
nicely done
I can modify it, delete it, add things to it, or use the things in it for other purposes.
Of course for the latter part, it could either fall to a copyright violation or legal fair use.
Either way, its mine.
> to be honest don't care which was the pendulum swings in view on this
> I just don't want publishers to have their cake and eat it any longer as they're greedy cunts
The only way to stop it is to legally frame the practice as fraud.
In good sense its fraud, bald furry is just interpreting it as a lawyer.
people act like the publisher is coming to your house and snapping your dick in half or something
Well, you can't sell a copied copy as it's a violation of copyright, and there's no laws regarding the selling of a steam account in order to trade licenses either, kind of like used games.
It is, by all definitions, a good.
Stop defending it kike.
Or you can't modify it, some EULA disallow that and wont let you play your game if it is modified.
Getting past DRM is violation as it is atleast in US no idea about other places.
There's a reason why some of the cheaters can be sued by tech giants like Blizzard.
This is surprisingly accurate when you remove the "Coming to your house", only because they don't need to come to you to snap your dick.
You can modify it. You may not be able to distribute those modifications but if you make them on your own then there's nothing legally they can do aside from bar you from playing the game with DRM. Cracks aren't illegal either, as long as you aren't distributing the copyrighted code or media you're in the clear legally, at least in the US.
>The exact wording is incorrect, therefore the entire subject should be dropped.
EULA is in no way a legal binding document.
Even the EULA in the copy you buy belongs to you.
>buy car
>eventually becomes worthless piece of trash
>can still repair and refurbish it
>buy GAS
>eventually shuts down and becomes useless
>nearly impossible to repair
wew lad
replace it with
Games as a Service is Scam.
>EULA
>legally binding
Fucking burgers man
>You may not be able to distribute those modifications
Unless they contain code from the original, nobody has any right to stop you from distributing your modifications.
>Cracks aren't illegal either
Yes they are, even cracking game in your own house for yourself is still Illegal.
How do you have 106k subs but have such low views?
bot subs maybe.
Or his regulars just aren't interested in the topic.
You don't. What makes you think that
>106,669 subs
>get jackshit in views
EULA isn't binding, but it's also cannot be dismissed as non legal document. It's proof that you have read it, understood it and accept it. This means shit like shutting down servers, closure of your account and other shit is understood by you and you accept it.
Imagine defending multi-national multi-million dollar corporations right to fuck you in the ass
>even cracking game in your own house for yourself is still Illegal
No they aren't.
Unless cracking the software involves interfering with software that isn't yours.
>buy a marriage license
>your marriage depreciates over time
wow marriage is a fraud
How is a crack different from a general modification?
The fact that I'm not a kike and think buying a good should guarantee lifetime use.
Simply rephrasing it to "Games as a service is legally ambiguous and risks consumer rights violations so require investigating from consumer law organisations" would be a massive step in the right direction to something being done.
But then again look at how quickly the fuss about loot boxes blew over so probably no hope in truth.
U.S. and other nations probably don't want to fear about disruption in a growing $135 billion industry.
Bad for the economy and all...
If the games are sold as a good, then everything that has been covered by the monetary exchange for the product is the property of the buyer.
Companies have been slammed in courts for this, even non-gaming ones like Audible.
>If I enter system 32 and start typing all sorts of shit into areas of software or deleting software I'm breaking the law
Basically your argument.
you should see giant bomb's numbers
Circumvention of DRM, illegal.
Using other peoples copyrighted code in your modification is still illegal, copyright law.
Even if you are going to write your own copy of an .exe, beaus it circumvents DRM it's illegal.
Reminder that VaIvedrones actually defend this bullshit.
Fuck off back to your epic thread.
>MY FEELINGS ARE THE LAW
Wow, very convincing.
which is why they're not
WHIRRRRRRR
Oh lord.
>it's true that they might, in at least one jdx, depending on state laws and constitutions, while also varying from county to county depending on the particular prosecutor, all while the case is pending appeal before the 8th circuit
The fuck kind of legal analysis is this?
Removing DRM is legal.
The US and EU courts identify games as products.
And still by ownership rights, you purchase something its yours.
its a "i was not totally wrong guys, i totally watched the video now"
Are you using the word "illegal" to convey conduct which is criminal or conduct which might open someone to liability? Because those are two very different things.
arstechnica.com
dmlp.org
>Note that there is no ban on the act of circumventing copy-control measures, but it is illegal for anyone to provide you with the technological tools to do so.
Morality is a major part of law you faggot. Buying a good should always without fail result in lifetime use, and games are consider
No it wouldn't. People like punchy titles and easy to understand concepts. Adding gray area to your argument doesn't help it spread.
>bruh but on the box is says they can destroy your property so its okay
They don't. Why are you talking out of your ass?
Why are VaIvedrones defending this? Like seriously what makes them defend a multi million corporation that does everything they can to fuck the consumers in the ass?
>Buy car
>Except it doesn't belong to you
>To use it you need to have a constant internet connection with manufacturer, else it stops working
>One day they disable their service and you have a nonworking piece of metal
It's a product because you transfer the goods via a one time fee that has no indication of an expiry date. It isn't like paying a WoW sub where you get a month worth of game for 15 bucks.
is food fraud? once you consume it it's gone
They are.
Property Rights is still a legal part of almost every constitution in the world.
Videogames are still legally labelled as goods.
What are you so set on being an ignorant retard?
Yes, technically you are correct, but intellectual property laws are what is known as a "legal fiction" and, as such, are not one-to-one parallels. Speaking generally, IP rights are treated as property where the central question is the Lockean concept of ownership. However, being that they are fictional concepts, IP, namely copyright, cannot be "stolen." Absent extreme circumstances such as a trespass or burglary, it is not likely you will see individual's facing criminal charges for copyright infringement. Rather, IP litigation occurs in the civil arena. This is for a multitude of reasons, arguably the most important of which being the fundamental protections afforded due process in criminal law. How can the state even prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you, by way of fraud or force, deprived someone of their "property" by copying an idea (or its expression) which is not even a tangible piece of property? In short, they can't - SCOTUS precedent has long stated that the state must prove every element of the crime BRD, which includes clearly identify the particular parcel or item alleged to have been stolen. This simply cannot be done with IP absent such overwhelming misconduct or fraud as to trigger a separate criminal offense (trespass, fraud by way of misrepresentation, etc.) And even then, I don't think I can recall a single instance of this being settled in criminal court. Usually misconduct just results in heavier fines imposed by the court.
A post this stupid deserves more replies slamming it.
Its not fraud if you condition an entire generation through media manipulation and shoddy public education!
Its a perishable food.
What happens to the food after you purchased it is up to you, the seller of the food have no control of said food you bought.
You's making another retarded analogy, you retard.
Not the same.
More comparable to you buying food and then the seller eating it, though even then it's an inaccurate analogy.
Yes but to go for the full title of fraud is ambitious and refutable from a layman angle and then people will read one refute of "We don't conduct fraud" throw their hands up and think everything being conducted is perfectly legal and never follow it further, leaving the people wanting to stand for consumer rights in the dust cloud.
I'd rather just push thorough investigation required from independent legal bodies and try get that done then take the next step accordingly.
Don't get me wrong, would love to land the fraud claim but just not quite there yet.
Just curious, but are you basing your argument or any particular legal authority? I'm a passing by lawfag interested in the subject and I'm curious about where your "labeled as goods" line or argumentation starts/ends.
No. Just like buying a game and then snapping the disk isn't the fault of the distributor. You can buy a McGangBang and then let it sit out on your porch for years on end for all McDonalds, and the law cares.
>buy a car
>drive off a cliff
This isn't an analogy by the way; they're instructions.
KYS
>investigation required from independent legal bodies
Which "legal bodies"? Do you mean administrative agencies within the government? Independent law firms? NGOs? Upon what basis would they posture their investigation, and what exactly would they be investigating?
>Ross was wrong
Is this the same guy that thinks Deus Ex is actually real? He's a fucking idiot and I wouldn't be surprised if he is wrong here too.
>literal food analogy
What if the seller presses a button that makes your food vanish out of thin air?
Ownership extends only to your copy not the whole IP.
Selling a product then still having power to terminate a bought and traded legal good, while legally floppy should be considered as fraud or at least have a technical legal points.
Because in the long run companies would just exploit a technologically lagging legal system to screw customers harder than they do now.
>buy a car
>breaks down in 1 month or 12 years, depending on if there's a playerbase
Shit analogy. He's right, it IS fraud.
>an intentional deception for unfair gain
So, like selling people a perpetual software license, then treating it like a subscription software license?
>I'm a passing by lawfag
If you are you should now about it by now, you larping mongoloid.
>Circumvention of DRM, illegal.
You people have deluded yourselves into believing lies. Post likes these make me glad I dont bother with modern "video games"
violation of consumer rights, yes it'd be administrative agencies predominantly, independent law firms would probably be a more reasonable goal if they can be convinced of malpractice, which is where fraud is a good "catch" / "angle" to go with, but equally in legal definition, may be missed.
Mind spinning that one out a little bit for me? I think that I might have misidentified your argument/position. For whatever reason I assumed you were arguing something different entirely; serves me right for jumping into a thread almost 100 posts deep without getting my bearings first. After re-reading your posts, am I correct in saying your argument turns on the incompatibility of the concepts of "services" and "goods" in the GaaS, box purchase, type transaction?
You must not be familiar with IP law, because the issues are anything but clear cut. There's a reason high profile copyright infringement/trade secret cases can drag on for years: the law is complication and unclear.
Ross is not wrong. Imagine if a company sold a GaaS game then the very next day shut it down. That would be fraud in most countries. Publishers are just lucky that none of them have been jewish enough to try something like that.
>an intentional deception for unfair gain
That's totally not happening or anything.
This guy is retarded. Ross is right.
Right on, I see where you're coming from now, although I still think it might be stickier than it may appear. Are you speaking aspirationally, as in you hope for that to be the outcome, or are you speaking in reference to a particular law?
>actual fraud, which requires an intentional deception
The deception is done at the point of sale. You're being sold a license to game, which at any time can be invalidated (unable to be used) because of things beyond the consumer's control. If I have a car, and the car manufacturer goes out of business, then the car doesn't stop running.
If I buy a game, and the game developer goes out of business, then my game does stop working. You can argue that I am just buying a "subscription" to the game, but that in itself is illegal because because it would violate the planned obsolesce laws. So which is it? Is it fraud, or is it willingly violating existing laws? I'm arguing that it is fraud because the advertisements are for the game, NOT the subscription to said game.
>it would violate the planned obsolesce laws
It would help if those laws actually existed.
eeeehh, on those facts alone I'm not sure the answer is so obvious. The scenario you've described would almost certainly arise under some form of contract law. In that case, everything would boil down to the actual terms as stated in the contract. Contrary to popular belief, the act of signing (or merely the act of entering into a deal) subjects both parties to civil liability in the event that such duties are unfulfilled. Cases like that are very fact sensitive and can sometimes be difficult to call, even when you're in the same courtroom as the jury.
>terms as stated in the contract.
Which is a can of worms on it's own.
You sign an EULA after the sale, after the product is given, after you have voided the warranty by opening the box, unless the STORE selling it explicitly outright states anything then there is no contract other than just normal goods being sold, in which case you were sold a non functional product
>You're being sold a license to game, which at any time can be invalidated (unable to be used) because of things beyond the consumer's control. If I have a car, and the car manufacturer goes out of business, then the car doesn't stop running.
But where is the deception? What you've described is a completely consensual, albeit lopsided, transaction. Just because a person is not aware of the fact that they are merely paying for a revocable license rather than the good/service (it's a hybrid) in its entirety doesn't make it fraud. Generally, while adjusting for the exceptional cases, courts assume that freely available information made public about the product had been consulted before entering into a transaction. Now, like I said, this gets murkier in cases totally unlike this where there are more coercive/fraudulent actions taken. But the general takeaway is that if you're going to enter into any sort of commercial transaction voluntarily, you damn well better take the time to do some research so that you understand what it is your are buying. Because the facts, as you described them, are not fraudulent. Information about when and how licensing rights can be terminated are almost uniformly spelled out in some form of official, public documentation. Other times it might be established by industry standard/custom, but the gist is that the information IS out there and publicly available.
Now a case where that information was not disclosed and was intentionally withheld or obfuscated? That would be interesting.
IP laws are convoluted. But ownership laws are clear, the consumer owns the game copy, the rights of the consumer to the IP is the one that is unclear.
The problem is that games that are sold and should be a property o the buyers still has its usability at the mercy of the publishers.
You are fucking retarded if you stayed this long and still doesn't get the point of the issue.
>which requires an intentional deception for unfair gain
Yes, it's surely not intentional :^)
for car analogies, wasn't there a car from Ferrari you buy but you had to get permission from them to use it and only in their course?
>Reason you can't make more copies is copyright law
Yes you can, for private use
>buy a car
>car manufacturer activates a hidden bomb and blows up your car just because he thinks people shouldn't use this particular car model any longer
>claims that he was only loaning you the car despite the fact that he obviously sold it to you
>paying for nothing is legit
yea, naw. fuck off kike
>Now a case where that information was not disclosed and was intentionally withheld or obfuscated? That would be interesting.
You mean like every videogame ever sold to anyone ever OUTSIDE of MMOs that demand a subscription fee?
Go to your local game retailer, pick up a random game and look around on the box, does it say ANYWHERE that the product will just randomly stop working when the servers shut down?
Does the store clerk stop you and go
>hey I am legally obligated to tell you that this product will stop working after an undefined length of time
The answer is no, EULAs don't matter for shit for games because you sign those after buying, but the sale is already made, you can't just add shit AFTER a sale and hope it holds water.
When you lease a car or buy a house, you sign a contract FIRST and then hand over money, not the other way around
why is this basedface pointing at me
Yes because it wasn't road legal.
I think that touches directly on the novel issue with GaaS generally: the modern "online multiplayer game" cannot be treated as a good or a service. It seems to me, with only a cursory amount of research from my 2L year on the topic, that the law is unable to adequately navigate games as a service. Prior cases involving goods and prior cases involving services may be similar, but there are key distinctions from both which make the process difficult. The downside to my position is that the only solution is through legislature, and how to proceed is unclear. Ideally companies operating around the country would be addressed by federal law, but Congress hasn't been exactly "with it" of late, leaving the most likely solution to be pushing for new state laws. But then, even if you get a state to agree, it's just one state. It's going to take a good bit more momentum before we see the courts pick this up imo.
>the absolute state of buyfags
enjoy getting ripped off and rationalizing away all the money you lost faggots
based and rumpilled
Unless your food requires an internet connection and then disappears after you've eaten half (without advertising this fact), no
>buy car
>game stolen
Video games, especially digital only copies, are not cars.
>cannot be treated as a good or a service
It can and very easily.
It is either a good that you buy, or a service that is being provided.
The current issue comes from the fact that companies are pretending that it's a service, while selling and advertising it as a good.
Online only games (because of their model or DRM) ARE services and there would be no issue treating them like services, but that requires work and more importantly in the long run costs companies money because different conditions apply to services, so they would rather ignore the problem alltogether.
The law is very much capable of handling it, but the issue is nobody has pushed this far and hard enough for any major court to actually rule it on anything.
There are actually a couple different ways to address "shrinkwrap contracts" and they vary by jurisdiction (yay contract law). In some states, you are correct in that the "mutual assent" element necessary to form a contract cannot be met if the terms are not made clear until after both sides have agreed to enter into a bargain. Other jurisdictions (I'd tell you which, but I think I might have sold that textbook) have instituted a "no return within x days = assent to the terms" approach. In those jdx, if you buy a game or other item and discover a the terms within its package after the fact, you have a set period of time to return the good or keep it and become bound by its terms. These are not the only two approaches to this particular type of contract either, and the law is pretty amorphous right now. I certainly wouldn't be so certain in my position with regards to any jdx outside of my own if I were you.
This. Haven't bought a game in years. Who the fuck would BUY a triple-A game?
>have instituted a "no return within x days = assent to the terms" approach
Which is irrelevant because you void your right for a return within X days by installing the game as per EULA.
This scenario cannot happen as EULAs explicitly wave your right for a return (or attempt to do so anyway) so it cannot be relevant as there is NO return period.
I love you people that act like buying AAA games is beneath you. Apparently playing them isn't so I have no idea why you are on your high horse.
If forced to put video games in either the "goods" or "services" box, without any attention paid to the nuance of the issues, I would argue that modern video games are in fact services, not goods. This of course ignores the, what I feel to be relevant, physical side of the transaction. Games that are bought at a brick and mortar shop bear many characteristics of a good, and that might shape the contours of the transaction. The issues brought up in that approach, I do not believe, can find a certain resolution in US jurisprudence in its current state. You either have to call it a service and ignore the significant effect the physical "box" has on shaping consumer perceptions, or you call it a good while ignoring the very real "service" like, well, services provided for license-holders long after purchase (online play, any free dlc, any social systems inside the game, any updates at all, etc). I don't think either approach is particularly satisfying
If games are a service, then so too are movies. However, movies are not sold as services either, they're sold as a good.
>IP laws are convoluted. But ownership laws are clear, the consumer owns the game copy
ownership laws arent clear though, and neither is the definition of "game copy"
you are technically being sold a limited use license
Well of course installing the game waives your right to return. This is also why stores like Walmart almost always refuse to take returns for games that have been opened: to prevent the possibility of fraud. When you went home and put that disk inside your computer, you could have played the game some and realized you didn't like it, or you could have ripped the image from the disk before returning it. Because it is impossible, absent a thorough investigation which you simply arent getting for a run of the mill vidya transaction, to determine what actually happened. I would also like to add that stores make that policy plainly clear either by way of a webpage of some kind, or even notices within the stores themselves.
Who's stopping you from e-mailing the publisher and asking to see the TOS for a specific product?
I can only assume you aren't being totally sincere with that argument in an effort to make some sort of point, because the its fairly obvious that video games and movies are not entirely analogous and as such must be treated differently. Laws draw such distinctions all the time.
>can find a certain resolution in US jurisprudence in its current state. You either have to call it a service and ignore the significant effect the physical "box" has on shaping consumer perceptions
An issue easily solved by simply requiring stores to inform customers that they are, in fact, buying a service.
I agree though, in an ideal world we would have people up to date on this issue working on it and a more complex soultion could be made, but these are big corporations we are talking about and it is established fact that lobbying gets laws made, so just taking the long term approach will result in nothing good for consumers.
Good luck playing a pirated copy when half of the game is on a central server that doesn't exist
>Well of course installing the game waives your right to return.
Thats the core of the issue.
Installing waves your right of return, it is also the point at which you are informed about additional requirements for the game.
How can a consumer be expected to return a good when as soon as they read about the things that would make them want to return the product ALSO voids the right for said return?
See, I could actually get behind something like that. It stays true to the principle of voluntary commercial transactions without being unnecessarily disruptive to established precedent. Had I known that's the position you were arguing from, I'd have cut to the chase a lot sooner.
>Who's stopping you from e-mailing the publisher and asking to see the TOS for a specific product?
They will ignore you and unless you are willing to actually go balls to the wall and sue them over it they will continue to ignore it and so far nobody has. Its why we are in this limbo in the first place
Publishers pretend nothing is wrong and every court case has been settled out of court.
stop killing games
They're not, however they share enough core elements that are similar enough that it would be odd to classify one as a good, and the other a service. Especially when you compare them with DVD sales.
I remember one of the first cases we looked at in my Civil Procedure class involved a very similar issue, and I distinctly remember being very unsatisfied with the outcome. A couple had signed up to go on a cruise and received their physical tickets after the purchase of said tickets had been made. Printed on the tickets were the terms and conditions and the couple refused to be bound by one of the terms. The couple sued with their basic argument mirroring the natural reaction to the transaction: how can you agree to terms which you cannot know until after you agree to them? Ultimately the case was decided against the couple though unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember what the courts reasoning was. I just remember it was one of the first times I encountered an unintuitive part of the law.
I never said I did pirate triple A games either
>They will ignore you
How do you know? And if you're so sure that is the case, why don't you try it and get them to settle you out of court as you seem to think is the case?
In that case I'll just not play it
Code does not break down or decay.
kinda sad that this is true nowadays
I think you've got more of an uphill battle arguing from that angle. First, the very structure of operations surrounding your typical movie and typical video game look entirely different. This is even more true today than ever. Movie productions is almost entirely done prior to release to the general public (unless you are George Lucas). By buying a DVD you are purchasing a license to view, and display in your personal capacity, that film as it existed at the time of the transaction. Compare that to your average modern FPS with an online co-op. Production on the game continues for months, if not years, after the point of sale as the developers and their crews maintain servers, develop additional content, address bugs, and even listen to customer feedback. That distinction alone demonstrates why movies and video games cannot, and should not, be treated the same for the purpose of classifying one or the other as a "good" or "service"
movie productions are*
>Ultimately the case was decided against the couple though unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember what the courts reasoning was
If they bought the ticket online then they are shit out of luck because it could have easily been listed under "additional information" somewhere on the page.
It's extremely easy to hide information on web pages while still technically filling the legal requirements for informing the consumer.
But physical game dics are another matter entirely as the entire transaction takes place in a very specific location and its very easy to see if the store informs the consumer or not, or if there is a small blurb on the back of the box saying "additional restrictions apply, consult EULA for more details"
then why are you even in this thread?
Eh this was way before the internet. I want to say it the "governing law" portion of the ticket. Basically it said that any potential liabilities would be determined under Florida law, with the cruise taking place in California (iirc). The couple didnt want to have to go to Florida to litigate any possible lawsuits and argued the court should view the terms noninclusion at the point of sale as voiding those provisions. IIRC, the conclusion was essentially: "Tough shit, you could have just gotten a refund (they were I believe at the boat by the time they had received their tickets). It's been a number of years since I read the case, so take the appropriate amount of salt.
who is this cancer patient?
>How do you know?
It's been attempted, hell ross brings it up in his fraud video and the previous one as well.
>, why don't you try it and get them to settle you out of court as you seem to think is the
Because the short term gain of a little bit of money literally isn't worth the time I would invest into dealing with it.
Again we exist in a limbo because nobody has actually ever let a court rule on it because of the reasons in this thread.
A lot of people actually believe that they don't own shit and competent lawyers who even know what the fuck a videogame is other than "something young people do" are few and far between. But the pressure is mounting, eventually someone will not agree to an out of court settlement and we will have predecent to go off of.
In that case though isn't it an entirely different issue then, they lost the case not because they were wrong but because they didn't want to deal with the red tape. They literally gave up the case as opposed to trying to argue it further no?
>"Tough shit, you could have just gotten a refund (they were I believe at the boat by the time they had received their tickets).
but then the case has nothing to do with what was said in the post you replied to because they were still able to get a refund due to a change in the contract. they were arguing for making a part of the contract null and void instead of arguing for getting your money back.
Again, it's been a couple years and many sleepless nights since then, so my memory of the details were fuzzy. But as I remember it, the issue didn't come up until AFTER the cruise ship allegedly behaved negligently which resulted in injury to the passenger. It was only then, when the couple decided to sue for negligence, that the governing law became relevant. Prior to that point, I don't even believe they had cause to bring suit to begin with.
Anyone remember EA's attempt at a Sim City reboot.
Remember when they said it "couldn't be played offline" and had to have a perpetual connection to a server in order to function?
Thats GaaS. If EA abandoned that game you'd technically wouldnt be able to play that game offline in that circumstance.
Turned out utter bubkis. People found a way to play it offline almost instantly. EA was just lying or being extremely incompetent.
Ross is right, companies should be held accountable by the law for situations like this. They shouldn't be allowed to sell something perishable as an unperishable without first having a discontinuity plan and a line pointing to terms of service in the box or webpage itself. It needs to be clear that customers going in know that the online portion of the game can be rendered inoperable at any time after purchase.
Companies don't want to be honest because people would then likely go and buy games that simply work as goods. Like, why buy that AAA shooter on PC with client based networking that can stop working at any time, when they can buy a AA or A tier game instead with dedicated server support. (And maybe mod support to further sweeten the deal)
Face it. Companies don't want people to stick to a game, because that would mean they need to make the next game better enough to switch over. So them being able to sell a game with an unseen expiry date is brilliant to them. People will always have to buy the next product in the series if they want to continue to enjoy the online portion.
Hm in which case we can go back to the fact that they were even offered a refund in the first place.
It's still a step up from the current model with videogames
>open the box, get to see the EULA, but you opened to box so no refund
>don't open the box, can't read the EULA that you might disagree with, you have no reason to ask for a refund
The fact that a refund was offered after they found out about additional requirements isn't an idea solution by any means, but it still better than what we have now
Yeah go and play Arkham City Imposters
Just because EA was lying this one time about how necessary always on DRM was doesn't mean that it's always a complete non issue to crack.
Did you miss the part where it was agreed it's still a violation of the law?
>it's another episode where Ross thinks the government should either force companies to keep running game servers at gunpoint or host them themselves using NASA computers or whatever
But how will I play "World of Bip Bop" 80 years in the future if companies are not forced to relinquish their rights to an IP they made and payed for the second they want to move on from a game!
well, then it really doesn't sound like that case has any relevance here. one can assume that not getting a refund and continuing with the service after the change of contract (or an addition to the contract) is aggreement to it. it's reasonable and intuitive that the couple couldn't change that well after the fact. it's also not too unreasonable for a company to want to be governed under the law in which they are stationed.
I typed up a full response only to realize it made even less sense the second time, so I'm just going to let the comparison with the other case die lol. For what it's worth, I do think there's reason to look at the two cases together, but I am far too tired to make any sort of meaningful or clear argument. I apologize for wasting your time with that.
>it's another episode where Ross thinks the government should either force companies to keep running game servers at gunpoint or host them themselves using NASA computers or whatever
Literally nobody has made this argument, Rosses point is that they should release an "offline patch" before the servers go down, they can run it on their own servers for as long as they think its profitable, but they have to make the game offline compatible when the servers do get taken down.
Fuck sake man it isn't even rosses vido that's in the OP, try to read more than 1 word before going to a kneejerk reaction
hi ross i like you
opened, disliked, closed, thanks
>which requires an intentional deception for unfair gain
Oh yes "intentional". Just like if I kill someone because I was a retard while driving, knowing I could kill someone, it's not homicide because it's not "intentional".
>someone: you might have rights
>consumers everywhere: that's great, what do we do to get them enforced?
>Americans: nooo stop attacking the defenseless poor megacorps
why this happens?
To explain why I took issue with the case as a law student: I had a problem with the court's indifference to the expenses that would result from terminating the relationship right when they discovered the unfavorable terms. It's pretty unrealistic to say that a company can withhold the terms of the contract until after you have assented to the terms. You can't agree with something you haven't been exposed to yet. Then, upon revealing the terms at the 11th hour, the company says suck it up or go pound sand. To me, that's unreasonable. Disclosure should have been made clearly and at the onset of negotiations. I was piggy backing off of the user I was responding to here:, but I fucked up the execution something fierce. I need to sleep lol.
DVDs are a pretty good comparison on how bad the madness could be though.
Imagine if you bought a DVD and it needs to be connected to an online server in order to play the movie.
Perishable discs have been done in the past. It flopped bigtime. No consumer wants DRM like that on a DVD. The hassle of setting little Jimmy's DVD player to work online so he can watch Paw Patrol.
ITunes stuff is streamed on the Apple TV but when you buy a film its on your account. It not working (a few cases its happened) is from technical oversight. You can still download the film on your PC and other apple devices.
Like a film gets relisted and they didnt fix the old copy for people that already owned the film. Technical incompetence from Apple that i feel should be gold grounds for legal pursuit on an individual level, but they clearly sell to you what is a film you own on your account, the right to watch and download that movie from their own service, and what film you are renting. There's a discontinuity plan there. Its not great, but its there.
Ideological conditioning and greed. Americans want to believe that 'when' they get rich, they can be the ones stomping down on everyone else. They're too stupid to realise how unlikely that is.
that's a reasonable stance i can see where you're coming from. i do agree with you in the sense that customer rights and scummy tactics like these shouldn't be protected.
>I voted with my wallet and I didn’t win REEEEEEE that means the concept of voting with your wallet is all wrong and we live in a society REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
every time, this is proof children shouldn’t be allowed to play games
No clue. As an american I'm sick of the constant bullshit people are willing to endure for some unseen convenience.
It never works though. Unironically go on reddit and see how many retards are defending some of the shittiest games in existence just because it has their favorite logo attached to it.
I'm not against capitalism and fully agree that voting with your wallet is the way to go, but sometimes the only way to defeat destructive consumerism is to tell the retards to fuck off and actually legislate some shit.
Go to bed, we have established that we all basically agree on principal anyway, hell even this case is still an argument for consumers in videogame terms because they got offered a refund, you don't even get that with games
>buy a car
>the manufacturer kill switches it because you swore to loudly in traffic one time
>money stolen
It doesn't even violate most laws sijce agreeing to a eula says you agree with that shit.
>They shouldn't be allowed to sell something perishable as an unperishable
that's not possible to determine in a way that doesn't infringe on your ability to create something
the region system in Sim City 5 was server-only and they had to reprogram it to run offline for the offline version
You can do literally anything to it but redistribute.
Which is true for most commercialized product, even kids toys have the "not for individual sale" slapped on them.
The doesn't make a Lego figure a service, it's still a good.
Love it when retards like you come into an almost 200 post deep thread and don't read anything.
Watch the video before commenting. Or just realize eula is not a legal document. If I tell you to sign a paper that says it's legal to kill you, that doesn't make it legal to kill you. You can't change law with your contract.
This. Nobody is making you eat the food, it's your privately owned good.
McDonalds isn't going to show up at your door tomorrow to take your burger away because they no longer make that kind.
I believe he said all they really need to do is provide the tools for someone to repair the game with.
And even with redistribution the lines are blurry. The licenses purchased through digital platforms, in theory, should be freely transferable. The law generally disfavors anything which hampers the free flow of goods, and I can think of no reason why a video game of all things can cut against that. It’s why I’ve always thought bans for “account sharing” were bullshit end-runs on consumer second-hand transfers
if retards are defending it, it’s a game for retards, let them have it. Go buy games that don’t have the bad features you dislike.
It's more like this:
You go to the doctor for a surgery, before you go in, you sign a waiver that's filled with an encyclopedia's worth of legal jargon that basically just says "if you die you can't sue us."
So you're in the surgery, you've paid your fines, you're good to go. The surgeon, halfway through, says, "Fuck this" leaves and kills you in the process. So you're dead, you're family can't sue because you signed a waiver that said they couldn't all because of some negligance that could have 100% been avoided.
That's what GaaS implies.
>its not fraud
>it just violates the law sometimes
kys shill sage hide
What backwards ass country do you live in where EULA is legally binding?
I can't think of one modern country you could be from because it isn't legally binding in any.
While that is true, courts will always attempt to avoid disturbing the terms of a contract. It’s one of the foundational principles of judicial contract interpretation. Unfortunately that paved the way to where we are now with GaaS. Judicial deference created an environment wherein consumers find themselves largely at the mercy of corporations so long as they don’t make the terms so aggressions that the court feels it must step in to prevent the law from being broken
Aggregious* I’m a stupid phone poster
GAAS is retarded.
Ross’s argument is retarded and would help relatively nobody if his solutions were realized.
Ross’s argument isn’t about GAAS.
No they can totally sue, any lawyer worth their salt would have that case won within the week.
Egregious
>it would help nobody if games devs were forced to implement end of life plans for their games
Exactly, and that's the point of all these arguments. People just don't know their rights at this point and publishers are exploiting the fuck out of that.
retard
Does this guy have an opinion on Maddox vs. Dick Masterson? That's the benchmark I use to decide whether or not I should listen to anything an Internet lawyer has to say.
you know why the lives of games end
because nobody cares about them anymore
what's the point
>Thats GaaS
According to literally fucking nobody until this video.
You actually can't contract around liability for negligence. The key case for this was a scuba diving company that required all divers to sign a waiver freeing the company from any liability resulting from any potential negligence on the part of the company. The court said "nah, negligence laws exist for a reason. you don't get to just state you're not following them."
You mean "When the corporate overlords decide that the cost of allowing you access to thew games is inferior to devoting those resources elsewhere".
Why does this guy seem like he doesn't care what Ross has to say?
He just has a blank poker face expression
The real concern is what are we going to do when patch servers close? Games ship in a broke ass state today. Is anybody archiving this shit?
I couldn't give less of a shit that some grindy waste of time service gets the axe but the games I buy are games I like and want to replay.
>this is proof children shouldn’t be allowed to play games
But children are the ones voting with their parent's wallets.
Does the "online experiences may vary" not cover that?
yes
considering how little it costs to run servers, that means the game is dead and nobody cares about it anymore
Yes. I forget which car, but yes, there's a Doug Demuro video on it
That's not true at all and games are killed all the time whether or not they have a playerbase.
Calling a good a service is fraud, retard.
IMAGINE BEING SO FAT
>The real concern is what are we going to do when patch servers close?
Once we have established that games as a service either need to outright be treaded as a service
OR
Games as not a service NEED an end of life plan so that they are not services we can strongarm publishers into including offline versions on disc fairly easily too because at that point they will be obligated by law to do so anyway
stop posting that faggot
Ross’s estimate was for bare minimum online functionality. The number of people who would benefit from that level of functionality is too small for EA to give a fuck about, and any level higher than that jumps the workload from days to months. They aren’t paying for that either.
They’ll slap a “good for 2 years” on the fine print and laugh their way to the bank when they get to shut the servers down when you and 100 other people were still having fun.
Because in a 100 years some retard is gonna find this and miss out on what could be his favorite game of all time just because some bureaucrats didn't want to make an end of life plan.
That's my point. The family in my example has every right to sue, but retards will claim "well he signed that 100 page long waiver so who cares about laws and shit"
All patches for the PS3 have been archived IIRC, and can easily be found on some site that name escapes me for the moment.
Maybe that's a lawyer force of habit
killing a game that is making you money is a bad business decision and bad business decisions don't need to be punished by the law
Sounds like a pretty clever way to avoid liability resulting from misuse.
How is an empty multiplayer game going to be someones favourite game? Why do you assume any videogame is timeless enough that it will matter in 100 years?
Yes, good job, you have discovered that greedy corporations don't care about you, but haven't yet gone to the brilliant heights of "But I should force them to care" yet.
>They’ll slap a “good for 2 years”
And then they get slapped by shit revenue because even the your most dudebro of dudebros will think twice about buying a game with label like that on it.
It's also kneekacping yourself when the game turns out to be a surprise success like how R6 continues to exist to this day when it was originally planned to have 1 major DLC update.
>literally arguing semantics
lmao, get fucked cunt
People don't care if it makes them money, people care if the resources that go into it could theoretically make them EVEN MORE money. It's getting a couple hundred a month from a server cluster or a couple thousand. You have to force them to not kill a game to grab at more money.
lawfag here
We are taught to think in such a comprehensive, ongoing manner when thinking about a case that I've seen more than a few with a blank sort of expression as they talked with me. Might not be what is happening here, but it is something I have observed.
Fucking retard it's a car sold to the extremely rich that on the point of sale is said
>!!!!! YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DRIVE THIS CAR ANYWHERE !!!!!
Its a completely different case because the person buying it is made aware of all the stipulations before they buy it, its not that the car is being advertised and sold to regular joes and when they go to drive out of the dealership they get told that "nah you are not actually allowed to drive it chump"
I'm not assuming anything. Taste is subjective and the preservation of culture should always prevail.
Your bad business decision shouldn't cost me my money.
Ah so it wasn't road legal. Still, the thought is pretty funny to me "buy car, ask the company to use it after purchase"
>Yea Forums - Corporate Lawyers
Protip: most of you don't know shit about the subject and dumb speculation only makes you look dumb as fuck.
brb adding a line that says anyone who agrees to my EULA surrenders all their possessions and rights to me. It's in a EULA so the law won't be able to touch me
>make them care
You need to stay in school.
Game servers are cheap enough they are not considered an asset
Games get shut down because it isn't worth paying people to support that game anymore or maintaining any legal liabilites you have from running the servers, ie nobody is playing them
Depending on what you do and under which jurisdiction you're doing it, that is in fact the case
It basically got made because very rich people wanted a car with higher specs than what most of the civilized world allows on it's roads.
It's more like buying your own rollercoaster ride and then going to visit it every now and then than it is a normal car
Easy there, user. I don't know what in my post your response was directed toward, but nowhere did I imply, well, any of that.
>bro only a qualified few are allowed to discuss rights of many
fuck off faggot.
Forcing people to perserve everything because someday it MIGHT be valuable is the equivalent of being a hoarder
are you a corporate lawyer? shut the fuck up bitch
They buy it now with the guarantee being literally no time.
>garbage analogy
Please fucking leave.
>Why do you assume any videogame is timeless enough that it will matter in 100 years?
Why do you assume that no videgame will be relevant 100 years later?
It's not about monetary value, it's about culture. If we just burned paintings after people didn't want them anymore do you think some of the great works would still be around?
can't speak for the whole thread, but discussing the law anonymously is incredibly relaxing as an attorney. There's no possibility of a looming malpractice claim or fear of hurting my credibility. Just stream of consciousness, unrestrained discussion. It's neat.
You can do that with litigation, you know.
Games get shut down because the corporate overlords don't feel like putting resources into them that could be used elsewhere. It doesn't matter how many people are playing or want to play.
Is this under US law or what?
No, they buy it now because nobody at no point ever actually tells them that shit will stop working.
>which requires an intentional deception for unfair gain
This is addressed in the video and demonstrated with numerous examples of company EULA contracts; whereby they intentionally and disingenuously misrepresent consumer rights and do so callously with malicious forethought in their own interests.
it depends*
*no really, it does.
>kills you in the process
user, a Doctor isn't exempt from intentional homicide, how retarded can you possibly be?
That's my point you niggers.
Read the replies.
>It doesn't matter how many people are playing or want to play.
It does because if there are people paying for the game then it's still worth keeping it up at low maintenance
99.9999% of all paintings ever painted don't exist in the present
>hey wanna buy a copy of Madden?
Sure I like that game
>hey wanna buy a copy of Madden for a year=
The fuck I don't wanna rent shit
Perception matters, the fact that corporations are tricking people into buying things that stop working for no good reason without telling them first being status quo IS NOT A GOOD THING
Just because that's how things are right does in no fucking way mean that its okay in any way, shape or form
And that's a problem.
You ever hear about all those black and white movies thrown out or burned up because the film studios thought they were useless, instead of realizing that works from formative years of a medium are very valuable cultural pieces, and can be studied from.
>It does because if there are people paying for the game then it's still worth keeping it up at low maintenance
Not according to EA and Darkspore
So you're saying that if people in the majority don't care about something that could easily be archived it should be destroyed?
Unfortunately, planned obsolescence has been a problem with consumer regulation since at least the lightbulb. It's why transparency is critical in a capitalist system
>works from formative years of a medium are very valuable cultural pieces
they might be interesting but they aren't really valuable
films wouldn't be better because of it
Their value is their history, that alone should be enough
I know, that's why I was asking specifically. Thank you for the answer
That's enough to convince historians, not really anybody else
You realize that's exactly what lawyers do
We could say the same of any history but almost every minute, dry, pointless, boring detail is retained. If it doesn't appeal to everyone then history itself would just be tossed in the fucking trash
I fucking hate people online playing as internet lawyers. Either get experienced lawyers to talk about this or it's a pointless discussion. If you want to say you don't like service as games that's fine, but using legal definitions and citing laws you don't understand it's such a pointless exercise
>It's why transparency is critical in a capitalist system
Guess what we don't have right now?
Guess what would happen to sales if EA just started slapping on "good for 2 weeks" labels on everything in an attempt to avoid the issue?
Guess what would happen if any other publisher caught on that paying 1 intern for 1 month of work to have an end of life plan costs less than losing out on all the sales of people who don't want to buy a "stops working in a day" copy?
Competition in this industry ins't the best, but we can fairly safely assume that if EA starts shipping all their games with "good for 2 years" then Activision will ship theirs with "good for 3 years" and Ubisoft/whatever will ship their open world games with "Offline included! Good for life!"
Why do you think most goods try to advertise the LENGTH of fucking WARRANTIES so hard? It's because Joe Smith will look at 2 products and go
>this lasts longer, I'll take this
EA and the like will try to game the system, it's what they do, but they won't do it by just putting on lables that cost them so much in long term and put them in a super shit position in terms of competition, in fact nobody will be in a rush the be the "first" to implement such a concrete deadline as it will be super easy for anyone to get one over on them by making the lifespan of their games 1 year longer
>madden
Drops to
Artists can and do throw their works into the trash because they don't care about it or don't like it, including video games
>Either get experienced lawyers
Who are all, by definition 40+ somethings who wouldn't know what a lootbox is much less why it's such a massive issue nevermind this issue.
I guess but is the Publisher considered the Artist or the Developer? Who has more control?
I think that what modern publishers are trying to do is make you pay a rent on the software like you do, say, in photoshop, before you could buy it and use it forever, now you have to pay every month.
They're basically trying to move towards streaming services but for games
I was talking about developers, not publishers
For every game you've heard of there's 10 you haven't that never saw the light of day
But that was because they were shit and deemed not worthy of finishing and releasing
>Drops to
dumb post
that's a retarded statement said by someone who deliberately wants to stay uneducated because "thinking is hard".
>I was talking about developers, not publishers
Well good for you, but it's the publishers that shut games down not the developers so mind coming down to earth from your Lala land?
Developers shut their projects down all the time
I can get behind that but in this case we were talking about old films that were likely disposed of by the studios that owned their rights rather than the artists that created them. The studios aren't the artists
Developers shut their projects down because corporate control from publishers tells them to.
The cases where the devs themselves decide that nah this isn't worth it are few and fare between when compared to publishers pulling the plug, it's in fact such a minority as to be utterly irrelevant.
Take break and consider what your actual argument is, because right now you are just jumping from one excuse to the next while changing the goal posts. Your posts are not making a coherent point or message
Yeah, how? Make them keep the servers open indefinitely, scaring devs off of online all together? Make them state the guaranteed online support’s lifespan, normalizing the idea of short-lived online components across the industry? Lawmakers won’t legislate, because EA cares more than the public does about it (fuckin loot boxes didn’t get touched in most of the world and that was huge), but even if they did they could only cause more harm than good.
Yeah I’m sure they’ll revolt and stop buying madden.
>Yeah, how? Make them keep the servers open indefinitely, scaring devs off of online all together?
Has been argued to death in rosses own video and in this thread.
Offline patches after the servers shut down
Tools that allow for P2P connections to be made/offline patches to be developed by the average consumer
There are many many many easy solutions, don't dismiss the issue as "well this is clearly unsolvable lets let publishers keep fucking us in the ass"
It violates actual consumer laws in a lot if countries.
>The cases where the devs themselves decide that nah this isn't worth it are few and fare between
No they aren't. Most game projects get cancelled by the devs before they even get a publisher. Like I said, for every game you see there's 10 you haven't, or maybe even 100 or 1000 if you want to include small prototypes. The point I'm trying to make is art is transient, maybe not to a consumer or a historian who sees them as unchangable events taking place but certainly to the artist themselves and you'd have a hard time convincing even the people who make the art to archive everything they create (although I'm sure some would like to for the sake of their ego)
They could just make it so the game no longer needs their particular external server to function, you know? Or make it possible to emulate their server locally. Or patch it so it doesn't need a server connection any more at all.
I'm glad Ross finally got a way to get people at least talking about games being killed, it's kind of a shame that people take his message the wrong way a lot of the time though
>Make them keep the servers open indefinitely, scaring devs off of online all together?
You say that as if it were a bad thing, and not a result that would improve video gaming drastically.
Why is gaming the only exception when it comes to corporate scams ? American jews and gaming journalists really believe that publishers and developers are innocent sheep that are harassed by consumers. Only in gaming you see this type of shit being defended and shilled.
The way around this exists. Private servers.
Most people are fucking stupid. Look at this thread, and the video in OP. People just believe anything the corporations tell them.
Because those faggots want muh gibs advance play.
Diablo 3 is mostly an online game, even when you play it in "single player". So if Blizzard's servers are temporarily down, and you're playing in "offline" mode, your progress gets erased and you get booted out of the game. Imagine when Blizzard goes out of business, and Diablo 3 becomes completely unplayable , say bye bye to your spent cash and game.
That's what happens when your game is mostly dependent of online service, and it's affecting single player games in the worst way.
>fuckin loot boxes didn’t get touched in most of the world and that was huge
Hasn't been touched yet*
that guy who had a private server for city of heroes got told to shut it down.
>Most game projects get cancelled by the devs before they even get a publisher. Like I said, for every game you see there's 10 you haven't, or maybe even 100 or 1000
Someons blackboard drawings are not relevant to this discussion
Stop moving goalposts
It's actually still up and running, all of it is
Providing an example isn't moving the goalposts you idiot
The point is you haven't played most of the playable games that exist - nobody has
his goalposts have long left the field user. It started with movie studios destroying old movies to artists having the right to destroy their works to artists having the rights to destroy their unfinished works to artists having their unfinished and unworked on works being cancelled/destroyed and having no relevance to historians and god knows where that's going to go.
Fuck he's gone and done left the stadium and ran out of town
dude looks like the son of the crypt keeper
Yeah sure whatever.
my point has been the same, it's impactical to preserve most art, you mixing that in with a bunch of arguments you imagined inside your own head doesn't change that
Its retarded to destroy it for no good reason.
that's your perspective as a consumer, that's not how the people who create them think
It doesn't matter if it violates the law, if you're in America and have money the gov will suck your dick all day.
The punishing laws only apply to normal people in that forsaken shithole.
>you mixing that in with a bunch of arguments you imagined inside your own head doesn't change that
You've already stated that if the majority don't care then it shouldn't be preserved. If that's the case then all history would not be preserved at all. Media such as film or video games are easily preserved moreso than almost any other artform. You've moved your goalposts so far to point where you're talking about concepts of concepts being destroyed when it started with publishers destroying the already created works of artists that aren't even owned by them by the time they're completed
>that's not how the people who create them think
"Artists" are all cunts. Every single one of them. They're all so far up their own asses they should be dead from suffocation. Their opinions are worth less than a vegetables.
Irrelevant when the thing has ALREADY BEEN MADE
Not a fan of game as a service. But banning thing just because I don't like it sounds like a commie would do.
Just let retards and their money be separated.
>You've already stated that if the majority don't care then it shouldn't be preserved
I didn't say that. Don't assume what other people think. I am not saying people "shouldn't" preserve things, you should be free to do whatever you want, if you want to preserve every video game you can go ahead. There just shouldn't be any laws about it, it's impractical and really intrudes on the pirvacy and freedom of people who create things in the first place
Biting the hand the feeds
>tee hee we only defrauded it a bit whats the upror about?
you fix it yourself and keep driving it
Remember when Ross made funny lets plays and reviews instead of posting 1hour soapbox rants?
I literally don't care. I fucking hate that shit so I stay clear of any fucking game that has this bullshit in place. If I want to play a singleplayer game I want to play it complete when I pay $60 for it, I don't want to come back in 4 months to play a 10 minute mission or some other crap.
You keep implying that projects that get canned mid development are equal to things that got finished and then shut down after the fact.
That is goal post moving at its finest and false equivalence of the highest tier
>I didn't say that
So this wasn't you?
Because that's where a lot of this started, this wasn't imagined
>Any form of regulations is Communism
If that's the case, then Communism has been part of the American system since the very start. 80 years ago, would you've been able to open a strip club next to a school and then scream Communism if you weren't allowed to?
>Just let retards and their money be separated
Except it effects us all, when all of gaming is converted into this form, we all pay the price due to the effects it has on whales.
He did "rants" even back in the day. And they're actually useful, unlike Angry " give me money" Joe or other bought e-celeb.
I'll take the quake boomer's word over the 360 era zoomer youtuber.
In the future 90% of games will be gaas.
Good games you want to play will require you to access servers.
Not caring is equivalent to not playing.
>A car is a service
It would be possible for all car manufacturers to change to a renting model that can be cancelled the moment you say something racist online.
If you don't care now, expect single player games to be run on servers, tldr, online only single player games. Once that server is shut down/the game is abandoned, say good bye to your "owned" game and the money spent on it.
90% of games nowadays are not worth playing either
>I called it a rant thus that discredits his argument
I take it your comment is one of those "lose or lose" situations.
Yeah basically. Why wouldn't we allowed to open a strip club besides a school? No one is harmed.
>it affect us
Not me. I don't give a shit. It just vidya.
What? He did literally one video and even said he'd be fine with losing because he has other stuff he'd rather be doing (MOVIE). He hasn't done a Ross Rant in ages either. It's very amusing how you think you're cool for acting like you're already sick of this.
I'm very surprised at the amount of views it's getting despite the length of the video. Hope it continues.
The point I was trying to make is that most art is lost to time whether it was once on display or never on display at all and that trying to perserve all of it is pointless. I think the point you're trying to make is that once art is "released" to the public it should always be available. I think you should be allowed to do that if you want to but requiring artists to archive their own work is pretty retarded
>Not me. I don't give a shit. It just vidya.
Have fun buying a single player game that's been purposefully made to be online only, and once the publishers/devs decide to shut the servers down, it will disappear from your library.
You libertarians are the joke of political ideologies. 99% of you aren't even gonna become entrepreneurs, yet you make excuses for private corporations. Enjoy having your electricity cut because of your racist post from 2009 in the near future.
Was this an attempt to make an analogy so terrible that other anons would immediately correct it with actually good analogies?
Good show if that's the case.
And our point was that intentionally destroy art that has been made and is available for no reason is fucking retarded.
The heat death of the universe is inevitable so you might as well cap yourself right now
His wording might be a touch off but the fact remains that you're deliberately being sold a product that is going to be rendered entirely inoperable for no good reason, but is being presented and treated as essentially the same as any more conventional game purchase where it works as long as your media works, potentially even longer if it's just a serial number that'll work with any disc image.
10% retention isn't bad, especially on a channel built on the H3H3 and Jim Sterling lawsuits that hasn't had another big ambulance to chase since.
if the customer is informed that there's a serious possibility that game may shut down at any time, it's their fault for being retarded and still buying it. just because he cares more about video games than he should doesn't mean you can use violence to force publishers to stop doing it. instead, companies that break your games are now in competition with companies that don't.
well most companies have posted their EULA publicly like EA ea.com
>doesn't mean you can use violence
are you clinically retarded?
>this happens
>car piracy becomes a thing
>people are actually downloading cracked cars
There's two issues there. One is that EULAs are rarely legally binding to begin with, the other is that a company generally needs to demonstrate having made a reasonable effort to inform consumers of this. Otherwise you could pull all kinds of shit. Imagine if your car company said "oh, the steering wheel coming off on highways? That's a known issue, clearly you just didn't submit the 17-part form via carrier pigeon for the known flaw remedy disclosure statement". An exaggeration but you get the idea. Also depends on the quality of the lawyers and judges involved how far that shit can slide.
That can also be turned around to the detriment of the company.
>this is the intended market for modern games
The solution is simple. The law is irrelevant, do what you want. Fuck kikes.
Yeah, don't question anything, don't use reason or logic to try and figure out why games as a service just isn't working and come up with arguments to provide solutions. Just consume, consume, consume and remain docile.
COPYRIGHT LAWYER
egads, is there anything as despicable on this planet earth
90% of online transactions violate consumer laws. Nobody cares because the balance of power is tipped against the consumer in a ridiculous way.
>tfw I'll be neck deep into several lifetimes of games to emulate by the time shit hits the fan and GaaS and vidya streaming becomes the norm
Enjoy your rotten industry, suckers
bamp
>This isn't an analogy by the way; they're instructions.
Nice.
the only good thing about games as a service I can think of is regular updates
getting new stuff, patches, and seeing general improvements over the years is pretty good.
>le soiface
Why do you keep posting this cuck?
>buy smartphone
>manufacturer has a built-in killswitch so he doesn't need to manufacture parts for it anymore
oh wait that actually happens
You can have patches, DLC, and content updates without games as a service.
>make 3 hour video repeating the same 7 minutes
>it's rarely, if ever, actual fraud, which requires an intentional deception for unfair gain
They put a kill switch on a game and can trigger it at any random moment with no warning given before the sale. It's pretty much setting all the conditions for a fraud, just not planning the exact date when they're going to destroy the product that the customer bought.
I mean that is a thing that GAAS have but aren't a requirement.
Also patches and expansions (not DLCs) have been around since before GAAS were a thing.
He's right, no counter arguments presented
flauschig
Huehuehue
That existed before gaas
Ross is completely in the right. Software licenses should be a formality when it comes to copyright, not when it comes to modification or usability of said software.
Remember to support open source.
judgments.fedcourt.gov.au
And the slightly shorter explanation of that judgement:
accc.gov.au
TL;DR: Software, including specifically games in this case, as it was against valve co(yes that one), are a good not a service, and valve cant fuck about the way they were under Australian law, especially with refunds.
Games are a good here, handle it.
>buy a phone
>can't repair it because the tech the company uses isn't available to the public
>the company purposefully slows the phone because they aren't making as much and would like for you to move over
awful! who would do such a thing?
wait, apple, and they got fined for it
cnet.com
why do video game companies get away with it?
ITT: Low IQ
I wish Ross returned to obscure vidya playthroughs. His crusade against games as a service is a sad case of stinking hobo yelling THE END IS NIGH at the street corner.
He literally said that's all his shows are, with those exact literal words, you absolute fucking retard.
Edit: Why the fuck wouldn't the youtube embed adhere to the timestamp? Why is the world like this?
Anyway, relevant timestamp is exactly 30 seconds into that video. (His first video announcing him doing anything other than freeman's mind.)
And you're still retarded.
underrated
didn't he describe his shows as literally that?
Wait, did jewtube kill timestamps?
Actually, from what I remember,it was URL#t=seconds or URL#t=MMmSSs format, but now it looks like you have to use & instead of #
youtube.com
>Anonymous 05/02/19(Thu)15:30:47 No.460
I think it was always like that.
Just like a playlist is &list=ID and stuff
>buy a car
>3 years later car selfdestructs because manufacturer stopped supporting it
That's definitely dying-channel tier.
im not gonna trust this faggot to interpret business law lol
Not like actual lawyers are looking into this right now which is why the law is what it is currently
>Games as a service is legally ambiguous and risks consumer rights violations so require investigating from consumer law organisations
That would make for a SHIT title.
>Says that everything Ross said is right
>The only thing Ross got "wrong" is that it's not "Fraud" in the the legal phrasing sense
>But still illegal
What's even the point of this video? It's just some autist arguing about semantics.
It's literally a "well actually" video.
Good job creating a more accurate representation of reality in your head by adding the data point of lawyers caring about semantics.
It's a dumb thing to make an entire video about. He doesn't even disagree with Ross except for the usage of a single word which he could've easily just wrote a comment
>This isn't an analogy by the way; they're instructions.
based
it's important to make your case as clear as possible. the entire case can succeed or fail based on a couple words.
This dude would look 100 times better if he shaved his head off, grew a full beard, and maintained it
>he says this as a joke
but its going to happen, everything is going to be internet connected, everything is going to be listening to you for marketing data
They're already doing it with fridges and microwaves, one day all road legal cars will be smart cars and you will have your licence revoked if you say nigger in traffic
>Shaved his head off
You're honestly right but I feel that's more through elitism created via corporate jargon.
Ross used the word "fraud" as a sort of catch-all-term for the anti-consumer practices these business are doing and anyone with a functional brain understands what he means and he evens back up his claims with evidence.
Should all said evidence be thrown out the window because he used a word in a more general sense since he couldn't think of a shorter more immediate term to describe these business actions instead of the literal meaning of the word in terms of law? It probably would yeah, but that's retarded.
this guy is a jew
he wants to erode all history and culture from everyone other than israel
Thats why he argues like this
>>You're honestly right but I feel that's more through elitism created via corporate jargon.
no, it's how the law works. people write down words to set general rules. lawyers and judges then interprete these words onto specific scenarios. the wording is extremely important just based on how language works and the judicial system not being allowed to deviate from the written word. everything about the law is literally semantics.
It shouldn't, but Corporations will argue with the courts about the term being used and that meaning the rest of the case has no basis. Because that's the way the law works.
>Judge, I would say what we are doing IS wrong, however it isn't fraud. He brought us to the wrong kind of court and is wasting your time.
>Wow, you are right. I'm throwing this case out and Mr. Scott owes you 10k dollars.
Most people are literally soulless robots
Normalfags who cant think for themselves and are running the program of if popular = true then agree;
contrarians who also cant think for themselves running the program of if popular = true then disagree;
I suppose you're right but I feel it's very often used as a subtle tool to keep the masses down if they don't know every single ruling of a court.
There's a reason why most cases don't even go to court anymore and just settle. Courts feels less like arguing about the law and more about memorizing every rule and by-law of the courts themselves and big companies will pay ridiculous amount for lawyers who know how to side-step the whole system.
>lets just burn all the old books lmao who needs old stuff
OLD THING BAD
NEW THING GOOD
>>I suppose you're right but I feel it's very often used as a subtle tool to keep the masses down if they don't know every single ruling of a court.
i agree and it's even worse because for any average person going to court is expensive, nerve wracking and time consuming.
>There's a reason why most cases don't even go to court anymore and just settle
that's because companies want to keep the law vague so that they can keep doing whatever they want and with what i wrote above.
A jew
but I guess they're the same creature
Because boomers making the laws have phones
but dont play video games
so obviously its the phone company who got fined while vidya goes unnoticed
>no, it's how the law works. people write down words to set general rules. lawyers and judges then interprete these words onto specific scenarios. the wording is extremely important just based on how language works and the judicial system not being allowed to deviate from the written word. everything about the law is literally semantics.
Yeah its called pipul and was created by the jews to interpriate the torah and talmund how they wanted, its why most lawyers are jews
Is GaaS what zoomers are calling F2P now? You don't need to watch a 2 hour video to know it's not fraud.
no you fucking retard
Calm down /pol/ it's too early for this kind of derailing.
GaaS is a F2P game that you pay to be able to play
Stop shilling your shit video
Its true user
look up Pipul
No
GaaS are games you pay for and require you to be always online so you can only play them until the company decides to shut the servers down.
No this doesn't just apply to multiplayer games.
>GaaS is a F2P game that you pay to be able to play
What is an example?
Destiny 2, Anthem,
You pay for the game but its set up in the exact same way as a f2p game thats relys on microtransactions
when you purchase a game and it has a free to play mobile style cash shop where you can buy coins or silver or gold or whatever
The worst case scenario coming out of this is that companies will clearly state their games won't last forever, give you a clear minimum for how long the servers will last, and consumers will continue to buy them. This would actually conform to Ross's demands, albeit in the worst possible way.
That's misleading, microtransactions doesn't make a game GaaS, all a GaaS is is you buy the game but the seller can disable the game on their discretion and you have no reasonable recourse to repair the game. Like if you bought Lawbreakers and now cliffy b pulled the plug on their servers you can't play the game you bought and paid for. If they released documentation saying here's what you need to make private servers for the game then it would be reasonable to repair.
Fair point however I feel consumers will be less likely to buy a product with a explicit death clock over it.
Worst case is std, you own nothing. You mod nothing. You have an empty room with no memories.
>Edit
>>Anonymous 05/02/19(Thu)15:30:47 No.460
Umm dude, are you okay?
But as another user said that would create a PR race where a competitor sells their game as guaranteed to last longer than the competition, and eventually, works for life private servers available. Just like games nowadays would brag about being lootbox free, then cosmetics only, then microtransaction free for good boy points.
>Anthem
So you mean EA premiere. That's literally the Netflix model, one of the most widely accepted distribution models for video. Why is it fraudulent when it's gaming and not video?
>it's not fraud but it still often is done illegally
Then what's the problem?
They'll just shove it in the fine print like they always do.
>defect put in on purpose by the manufacturer leads the car to break down
it isn't fraud, it's the standard
planned obsolece
>illegally download a car
Not him but it bites you in the ass when car industries from other countries come into the picture and make cars built to last longer. Japan entering the vehicle market did a lot to curb the shitty standard the US had, it's why we no longer make cars that just sometimes don't start in the morning.
Planned obsolesence and planned destruction are different things and the latter is illegal.
>Most online games never advertise the risk of server shutdowns.
Okay and? The hammer I buy to sexually pleasure my dad with doesn't also advertise the risk of the handle breaking after enough usage. Should I start making shitty youtube videos to change laws for no reason because I'm too dumb to use basic comprehension that not everything can last forever?
it's more like the hammer randomly disintegrated because the company decided to disintegrate all models of that hammer, if they had 1 hour or 10k hours of use, doesn't matter, all of them are gone.
Stupid
Apologists
Generating
Epic shitposts
your analogy would make sense if you bought a hammer that you thought was complete and fully functional but in fact missed the handle and is provided by you by the company seperately. then one day the company decides that it doesn't want to provide the handle for you anymore and also doesn't want to provide you the means to make your own handle so that you can keep using the hammer.
Exactly. This user acts like because I can't make a mold of my action figure and resell copies of the action figure, that I can't make a mold and make a thousand copies for myself.
That other user is either dumb or purposely misrepresenting the games license, attached to the purchase of the copy you own.
It's more like you need to shut the fuck up before I bash your asshole in.
Nope. You own it. Eula doesn't mean shit. If you paid for it up front, that copy is yours. Enjoy your owned games. Don't let the corporate boogie man fool you.
Congrats you earned yourself a three day ban newfag!
No, that is SPECIFICALLY in reference to the ESRB content rating.
>as service
Either ask for subscription or fuck off.
The easiest way out for corps is to make offline/LAN option and make any/all MTXs available. Guess what, they will never do it.
Unless they are forced to by law. And no new laws are needed, just existing ones extended.
>Ross was wrong
Nah, he is right, you corpie-sleeve.
THIS IS A FUCKIN' VIDEO
I guess people missed the part where French himself said there could be an in on this through state legislation forcing the hand of publishers, similar to emission regulations in California where manufacturers conform their vehicles to California regulations because they're the strictest. A one-size fits all practice done for convenience.
Ross is a treasure and his point still stands.
Companies can keep claiming that they have no intention to shut down games, but that is disingenuous at best.
Not that user, but its not a limited use license.
Bad decision. Because companies will encroach onto new territories/IPs.
a car is a good you fucking RETARD
STOP COMPARING GOODS TO SERVICES YOU FUCKING NIGGERFAGGOTS
Guy invents a buzzword that none has ever heard about or cares about.
Another guy defends the made up term.
Gamergate the second.
t. seething trancel
>furfag
I expected nothing and I was still disappointed
>games as a service
>invented by Ross
gotta love you corporate shills
>I have no worth as a content creator
>let me post inflamatory videos that sides with illegal business partices instead
wew lad
>I agree with everything this man says, but its not fraud, its a synonym of fraud
What a pointless fucking video
Games are goods, not services. They cannot be services by vitrue of their nature.
Nice. Exactly what corpies like. Just make the issue stay under legislation radar.
>tfw Ross is too good a guy to just tell him to fuck off
It's nice to see that we agree then.
I just don't like how people inflate the importance of semantics over actual legal and ethical actions themselves.
But I can see your point of the importance of understanding said semantics to have the law remain consistent. Maybe we just need a better balance of the two or the very least make it easier for the layman to be part of the court system.
based
It will never happen. Atleast not under current conditions. For that to happen, predatory pro-corporate government and policies, and legislations would have to be in place.
I think they guy wanted to help by explaining to Ross the full "legalese" of what lawyers and courts would accept but in doing so all he did was show how elitist and obtuse the court system is.
The layman understood what he meant when he said fraud. Anyone with a brain cell does but it wasn't the correct "ruling" so he's wrong I guess.
So it'll happen by 2020?
I love Ross, but this is the kind of shit you start to do when you don't have a proper job for a long time.
He said that corps are pushing a narrative. Is that like strong-arm lobbying or lobbying in general?
So soon? How?
They're pushing a narrative that games shouldn't be considered goods and that GaaS is somehow a good thing, rather than a get out of jail free card after imposing always-online DRM.
Great one
Corrupt lobbying is essentially just paying the government to pass laws that'll benefit the corporation. Spreading a narrative that'll benefit you helps a lot but not needed, just look at Article 13 in the EU.
Narrative marketing is more insidious. It's not about bribing the government but tactically gaining loyalty from the masses so they will be more inclined to buy your products and gain a better reputation in which they can then use to get away with questionable actions. The most common and basic one you're seeing now is "Wokeanomics" the current practice of selling your brand as artificially "progressive" whilst not really doing anything progressive to get more sales from minorities who are usually not considered their main consumer base to sell as much product as possible.
If Ross's plan ever goes anywhere the narrative push will be a lot more aggressive and hard. Companies will complain that without the service practice they "can no longer update the game" and will stop updating their games and pin it on people like Ross who are"privileged" and "don't know what they want".
Forgot the mention: Journalist and gaming news sites who survive from ad's from big companies will also be a major part of the narrative push and be reinforced to create article's condemning consumers like Ross and praising companies for giving us the privileged to have games as a service.
>dude voting with your wallet doesn't work lmao
I can't take this guy seriously when he spouts such nonsense. More than a decade ago MMOs with subscriptions were quite popular and were generating a lot of money but where are they now? League of Legends and other free to play games have replaced WoW as the most popular online video game. And how did that happened? Because people VOTED WITH THEIR WALLET. He even acknowledges it that there aren't many payed MMOs anymore but somehow doesn't understand that it happened only because of people voting with their wallet.
The problem with people like Ross is that they think the world is static and nothing ever changes. Do you honestly think that companies like Ubisoft will always be around? What happened to Atari? Or all these retail chains? Where are they now? I'm sure someone 40 years ago would have ranted about how Atari is too big and will always dominate the industry. The video gaming industry has one of the most firece competition and trying to create new legislation to "solve" a problem will make things worse. Do you really want the EU to create legislation for video games, the same EU that wants to create a link tax and censor the internet?
I think this analysis misses the mark. A lot of people are surprised to find that the vast majority of legal disputes above the trial level involve very fine, but significant, distinctions. Though they may appear arbitrary on the surface, and some (though the minority) simply are, the reality is that a dizzying amount of thought is put into legal analysis. After all, maintaining clear distinctions and meaning within the law is crucial; glossing over important distinctions because they might at first appear minor is a recipe for judicial rot.
I know that, but can this "pushing" be compared/likened to lobbying?
> game companies will die and take their games with them
I hope your burn your personal belongings as soon as a company goes under retard.
Gee it's as if the average tard doesn't have long enough attention span to listen to legal talk. The channel is great if you have a big handsome brain.
I 100% agree as a lawfag. Instituting meaningful change like that will almost certainly be met with hostility from private practice attorneys, especially big law. I'm a vocal advocate for decreasing the hourly cost of legal work by streamlining discovery/pre-trial procedure in a way that minimizes the ability to abuse opposing counsel with nearly-frivolous motions. I get dirty looks constantly when I discuss the subject, but I truly believe that everyone should have access to affordable (or free if you can't afford it at all) for ALL legal matters, including civil. There would be checks and requirements, of course, but if done correctly I think would address your problems.
>OP thinks developers are committing fraud accidentally
I understand but as stated above it feels like 90% of the time all discussion is revolved around said very small distinctions and an extremely low amount of cases ever even go to trial and instead settle because large companies spend huge amounts of money for lawyers who seemingly just waste the prosecutors time over said intricacies and just try to burn them out before the trial ever happens.
Good thing you're not part of the legal system, else we'd be worse off.
that's when everyone votes with their wallet
I think he's referring to situations where people deal with shit service and shell out tons of money anyways
a current example would be this Epic games exclusivity stuff
I've been seeing people say to vote with your wallet by not buying BL3 on Epic to denounce their exclusivity practices but you know a shit ton of people will crack and buy it day 2
also that infamous picture of the MW2 boycotting group
the true answer to games that will no longer be playable when a company arbitrarily decided to shut down its services is to not buy the game itself until something is promised to remedy that issue but people don't care as long as they can get their enjoyments worth
over time companies will slowly increase the bullshit they can get away with until it becomes a norm that normies feel okay paying up for
if your most enthusiastic fans are a much smaller group then a shit ton of casuals then the money is in the casuals and the whales that spend no matter what happens (gacha jpegs)
>take their games with them
Only games that require servers to function. If you don't like this practice feel free to not support such companies. Seems like you've completely missed the point of my post
>It's not about bribing the government but tactically gaining loyalty from the masses
So its lobbying without paying via brainwashing (in this case - consumer exploitation).
Law needs to catch up with this shit.
I think I agree, and in fact most lawyers are beginning to agree as well, with a couple caveats. I think that an attorney for a private party to a civil action deliberately drawing out proceedings by way of almost-frivolous motions and abuse of discovery is 100% harmful to the system. However, you mentioned prosecutors which brings criminal into the equation, where my general attitude on the matter switches. I'm a public defender myself, so full disclosure of my bias, but I think the criminal justice system works best when the state is slowed by defense counsel. The social cost of wrongful convictions is staggeringly high, much more so than a questionable decision in a civil matter, and as such I appreciate any efforts to hinder the state's use of its immense power.
But civilly I agree that we need to get our shit together when it comes to expenses/time.
>don't know what they want
But we actualy do. AFAIK - that is just a blatant psychological manipulation tactic used by character disturbed individuals (psychopaths/sociopaths).
There's a common catchphrase uttered by virtually every lawyer at one point or another: "words have meaning." Fraud has a very specific definition with specific elements contained within. This is required of all criminal charges and has been since time immemorial. So understanding and applying the exact definition as outlined by statute/common law is absolutely necessary at all times in the practice of law. It's a bit more forgivable for laymen to make that mistake however.
>It's a bit more forgivable for laymen to make that mistake however.
It's not
Many games don't bother too tell you this until you've already purchased them. Do you not remember the Diablo 3 fiasco?
Yeah, I was referring to Civil cases. I 100% agree that defense attorneys/counsel should have the advantage. Really everything else you've suggested is completely fair and I'd love to see evolve the court system.
You're a cool guy lawyerfag.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I work with clients frequently that think "motion for discovery" is a single word and is used to refer to the actual discovery files rather than a legal motion for their production. And this is widespread; one of the first questions I receive when working with a new client is "Where's my motionofdiscovery." It's with that in mind that I'm willing to forgive overlooking or misunderstanding the nuances of a specific crime.
>that's when everyone votes with their wallet
Everyone is already doing right now. WoW is still around so obviously some people are still happy with subscription based games
>a shit ton of people will crack and buy it day 2
Because they feel that the company's actions isn't so sleazy to warrant a boycott
>if your most enthusiastic fans are a much smaller group
That's why niche markets have always existed and as long as entry barriers are low they will always exist.
Again you're thinking the world is static. These big companies will not always be the top dogs. At some point a new competitor will enter and take away their market share. Look at what happened to WoW.
Keep fighting the good fight, user.
That's pretty funny how people misunderstand that, maybe it's because a motion for discovery is usually granted? So people take it for granted, like how they take miranda warnings for granted even though so many people talk during an interrogation regardless.
The furfag you keep posting here is a hack. He claimed, in another video, that the judge who helped an illegal immigrant evade an ICE agent, wasn't guilty of obstruction of justice.
The guy is a faggot with an agenda, and probably a turbo kike.
So please, stop spamming this literal who and his shitty videos.
Yeah it's mandatory that the state produce discovery (fundamental due process and all that). I think it comes from the general tendency to spell/pronounce a word without really understanding what it is/means, which then gets repeated ad nauseum because most criminal defendants are repeat offenders (and more often than not pretty dumb). And don't even get me started on Miranda. I've seen cops outright ignore 5th/6th amendment demands for an attorney because the language was "unclear." There was case covered nationally not too long ago where someone was denied an attorney because the cop said he didn't know what a "lawyerdog" was (the dude said "I want my lawyer, dawg").
>Law needs to catch up with this shit.
That would be a lot more difficult if borderline impossible. "Brainwashing" as you call it or even just basic propaganda at the end of the day is just basic marketing. Really effective marketing that is meant to sway long term public opinion to control the masses mind you, but ultimately just marketing.
Humans are emotional beings and sometimes this extends to the realm of products and consumerism. Just like how a politicians "market" themselves to lead a country, a company "markets" themselves for you to be a loyal customer. The more effective the emotional appeal the more they can get away with it.
That's not really something you can "fix" or a least not easily. Like what are you going to do, prevent private companies to be part of the news/journalism industry and let the government have extensive control of what news people consume? Yeah, like THAT won't backfire.
The best solution is to just be informed and level headed. Like the stuff you consume but don't let it dictate your life or how you gain information of the world around you.
>The best solution is to just be informed and level headed.
100% this. The US government is structured in such a way that awareness and critical thought are paramount. It's why we managed to go centuries without breaking customs within Congress/surrounding the Supreme Court only to do an about-face around the time Reagan was elected and started torching anything not explicitly spelled out. The system only works when the adults are in the room and remain level-headed.
Anything which is classified under the tertiary category of economic relevance as goods irrelevant to survival, and digital entertainment goods are even beneath that category, which demands to be put in the monthly bill as a line, is by that definition fraud.
Any digital good which doesn't allow me to use it offline, yet belong in the entertainment category, is fraud and a scam.
It's pretty logical, rational, and simple, and no dumb looking Jew with a hat reflecting the quality of his opinion will ever convince me otherwise, or the majority of society for that matter.
Weird how the process isn't just automated for cases like that, rather than allowing for negligence by human error, if not by ill-intent. I wonder how some of the more "high-end" attorneys feel about getting saddled with pro-bono for some moron who incriminates himself at every opportunity.
>muh games dying
>muh peak oil
>muh robot jobs
>muh global warming
So what's next?
>getting saddled with pro-bono for some moron who incriminates himself at every opportunity.
So, for public defenders at least, you learn to disassociate yourself from your (usually but not always guilty) clients. When you've got Tim Chucklefuck who brags on Facebook about committing the offense, it becomes less about vindicating the defendant and more about putting the state to task and forcing them to meet their burden. Our adversarial system is designed with the assumption that both sides will fiercely advocate for their sides best interest, so fighting for even the scummiest of scumbags can be a noble pursuit because the system is worth protecting. Much moreso than the 5th possession w/ intent to deliver case that week.
>our business model often violates the law but that's ok because it's technically not fraud.
>So what's next?
>muh my wife doesn't want to cook and I have to eat canned beans with insects in them
>prevent private companies to be part of the news/journalism industry
No, under conditions of transparency, conflict of interest and clear statement of intentions/bias
>let the government have extensive control of what news people consume
No, government can set up a watchdog and regulatory comitee/overwatch. Im suprised that you wrote that.
>adults in the room
You mean competence. People are mortal, so unless its written in proverbial stone (law/legislation/morals/code of conduct/principles/etc), and extensively taught/applied/disseminated/etc, its not going to last and is prone to information corruption.
Its fixable, tough, but fixable.
>No, government can set up a watchdog and regulatory comitee/overwatch. Im suprised that you wrote that.
*regulatory captures your comitee*
Pshh, nothing personnel, kiddo
False equivalence.
Just too bad how some retarded juries and judges will act as if the burden is tilted way too much in either side's favor sometimes. Exceptions to the norm maybe but when child molesters get off scot free because some judge must've had a stroke or something, or a minor can incrimate himself of rape and murder despite no physical evidence, your trust in the process isn't strengthened.
>*regulatory captures your comitee*
?
>government can set up a watchdog and regulatory comitee/overwatch
Yes let's give the government such a huge amount of power! What a great idea! Surely it won't be used to hamper competition and create entry barriers.
do you honestly expect anyone to take someone wearing a cat hat seriously?
>Im suprised that you wrote that.
Did you miss the part where I wrote "Like that won't backfire" very sarcastically? The point I'm making is limitations on marketing and communication is a difficult slippery slope with no real good answer.
The point is that this guy is always screaming about how x will lead to doom
He's writing that as a negative.
Poe's Law is a hell of a thing.
fuck off this is an actual important debate about GaaS you faggot
>replying to mentally ill/corp shills/russian trolls
>x will lead to doom
Preservation of information/art is important. But it can hardly be compared to preservation of ecosystem on planetary scale or depletion of natural resources.
People will be upset if Mona Lisa painting is lost (original and its copies), but that does not compare even closely to doomsday where humanity runs out of natural resources/hits resource depletion threshold. One is preventable/unfortunate, other is crippling/disastrous.
Insure that it does not happen - enough lessons learnt from past (Deepwater Horizon etc).
Stop thinking the world is static ffs. Why do you assume that resource x will always be the primary resource that factories will be using? Guys like you are complaining about deforestation and don't even realise that there are more trees on this earth now than a hundred years ago.
>limitations on marketing and communication
So asking/forcing/enforcing/legislating companies to disclose truthful information to customers is bad? Like hell its not.
>slippery slope
Its not.
>difficult
It is. Which is why there needs to be a balance.
oh goodie, let's settle this on youtube instead of the courts
The big companies are now spending millions of dollars every year lobbying for legislation that favours them. Money that could have been spent on improving their products. The same thing that happened to GM and Ford will happened to EA and Ubisoft. Congratulations.
only npcs watch this faggot you literally can't sink lower
Because resources are depletable. Unless there is a highly efficient recycling technology, biotech advances grealy forward, or we enter space-age, we are going to hit depletion threshold - point where new resource availability is insufficient to drive economy/production/compensate depletion rate.
>resource x
You do recall that barrel analogy?
Dont forget that human population on this planet is increasing rapidly, and humans - us - are very product - hungry.
>there are more trees on this earth now than a hundred years ago
Bait.
Oh and I forgot. I now have to pay even more taxes to maintain government bureaucrats even though I don't even play video games
Does your company have any openings Shlomo?
Oh no, the big companies are burning money to get around regulations, that means we need 0 regulation.
Nice
>So asking/forcing/enforcing/legislating companies to disclose truthful information to customers is bad? Like hell its not.
That's not exactly what that user was saying (or maybe it was and I interpreted wrong) but from what he wrote he was referring to the effectiveness of marketing and its abilities of rallying masses in general. Being untruthful is a good tool of making people grow an emotional appeal to your products but not necessarily mandatory.
It's why I used SW as an example picture. What exactly has Star Wars (specifically the films) lied about? It had some journalists talk about how woke it is and people who hate it are pricks, which are scummy move for sure but not really lying since opinions are and should be protected. It's a franchise that managed to create a deep attachment to people at a young via marketing and merchandising.
And that's really the point I'm making, that many companies can control people by pure emotional appeal and manipulation. Not technically illegal but man if it can be used to do so.
>muh malthusian theory
Got debunked in the 19th century. Your'e a fool if you think a car will require the same amount of resources and the same amount of time it does now in a hundred years.
>if the government enforces its laws that are already in the book, it’s bad because businesses would then try to get around them
>also taxes would go up because THIS ISSUE is what would cause an increase in beuracracy, not any of the other dozens of business regulations, THIS ONE
First. They should indeed improve their products and stop wasting money on lobbying.
Second. GM. You mean ignition switch recall?
Third. Ford. Elaborate.
What kind of retard unironically believes that some instated technological breakthroughs will progressively allow the human race to propigate endlessly on the same resources. Who does that, who puts their faith in technology that doesn’t exist yet to solve a problem that currently does?
This.