PlayStation is erasing 1,318 seasons of Discovery shows from customer libraries
arstechnica.com
The change comes as Warner Bros. tries to add subscribers to Max, Discovery+ apps.

PlayStation is erasing 1,318 seasons of Discovery shows from customer libraries | The change comes as Warner Bros. tries to add subscribers to Max, Discovery+ apps.::The change comes as Warner Bros. tries to add subscribers to Max, Discovery+ apps.

  • penquin@lemm.eeEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    Im still trying to understand why this is legal. Is there more to the story that I’m missing?

    • Gigan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      321·
      1 year ago

      Technically, when you buy a show or a movie you’re buying a license to watch it. That license can be revoked at any time. This is true for physical and digital copies, it’s just impossible for companies to revoke the license when you have a physical copy.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
          372·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately we don’t all live in civilized places like the EU. Some of us live in “shithole countries,” like the United States.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          This might only affect US customers as these studios typically create separate licensing deals in each country. An example is when the new Star Trek shows began airing, everywhere in the world got to watch it on Netflix while US customers had to subscribe to CBS All Access (now Paramount+).

      • penquin@lemm.eeEnglish
        10·
        1 year ago

        Now how is THIS legal? Wtf? So, basically you buy a car, pay it all of and the dealership can just come to your house and take it? This is basically the same. I paid for something to own. It should be mine forever.

        • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          41·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know about cars, but John Deere tractors can be remotely disabled by the company.

          They were “bragging” about this in the early days of the Ukraine war, saying that they were locking down tractors that Russians were trying to take out of Ukraine. But, the fact they can do that means that if they don’t like some random farmer in Iowa, they can also remotely disable his tractor too.

          • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            I’m kinda surprised that there was a single Ukrainian tractor that wasn’t rooted and still under the control of John Deere. Trying to restrict a Slav’s right to repair is about as impossible as trying to restrict an Italian’s right to complain about food.

            • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              Who knows how honest John Deere were being in their claims about the tractors. But, they did claim that they were able to disable the tractors remotely, as if that were a feature.

              But, it’s true, I’ve heard that when American farmers want to repair their own John Deere tractors, they tend to use Ukrainian firmware.

          • penquin@lemm.eeEnglish
            32·
            1 year ago

            That’s actually very dangerous. They can fuck with our food supplies whenever they want to.

            • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, but they have a good thing going, and wouldn’t want to risk it by doing something that will get laws changed.

          • Zozano@aussie.zoneEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            I’m pretty sure Apple has something similar. You don’t technically own the device because the software it’s packaged with doesn’t belong to you.

            This means they could brick your phone and you have no right to complain.

          • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            You know the first of those links is right wing propaganda, right? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/infrastructure-bill-track-drivers/

            While there is no mention of a “kill switch” that could be accessible by law enforcement in the bill text, the legislation does not define exactly how the technology would limit impaired driving. Rather, the contents of the bill simply define the equipment to be a system that can:

            Passively monitor the performance of a driver to accurately identify whether they are impaired.

            Prevent or limit operation if impairment is detected.

            “Passively” detect whether the BAC of a driver is equal to or higher than the legal limit. In such cases, the system could “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”