this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
60 points (100.0% liked)
Games
16800 readers
777 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you also believe all crimes should result in life imprisonment?
If it came with no downsides, sure. Not being able to play Playstation is a very minor part in life not really deserving any kind of "fundamental rights" based argument, unlike locking people up.
Do you not have a fundamental right to the goods you purchase?
But you didn't purchase them, you licensed them conditionally.
Yeah technically, but that only stands until enough people challenge it
In other words, no you do not currently have a fundamental right to that content.
In other words, no not even close to what I said.
Often these little legalese situations are illegal or legally undefined, and the only reason it holds is because no one has pushed against it
Got any similar examples?
Any terms of service agreement. When legally challenged, they usually do not hold up in court.
Playstation makes you sign one that says you dont get to own the games you pay for and they can take them away whenever. A judge would likely tell them thats illegal, and they have to render services paid.
There is a reason the "you behave like an ass, you lose access" part is not usually the one anyone challenges in court.
Okay but hit me with some examples.
I think you can google specific lawsuits like a big boy on your own, no?
So you're talking out of your ass. Got it.
Lol, or I trust you can type things like "terms of service legal standing" into a search bar, and have better things to do than research something I already know for a stranger who wont read anything I find for them.
Look through my comments. The last dipshit who played this game ghosted me after I found them 4 sources. Guaranteed, they did not read them.
If you actually care? You can find the info. We both know you didnt care what I brought you, tho, which is why youre pretending a knock off reddit forum needs citations to be correct.
I googled it and looks like you were wrong.
Edit: also lol at "This isn't reddit, I can spout whatever crap I want without backing it up"
"the law doesnt support this when push comes to shove, judges do not side with it"
"Source?"
"If you care you can find it yourself, this is a comment section"
"RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Lol ok bud
Hey look, another comment with nothing even close to a defense.
Let's replay this to see why what you're saying is such obvious bullshit, shall we?
First you claimed that one has a "fundamental right" to access digital content they've "purchased" (licensed conditionally). There is no such fundamental right. You're flat-out wrong there. Go ahead, Google it.
But let's give you a little wiggle room and assume you just didn't know what a fundamental right is. What you're saying is that if you violate the terms of service by engaging in cheating, harassment, or sexual harassment, and the platform bans you, thereby removing your access to that content, a judge would rule against the platform and have them reinstate your access in almost every case.
First of all, the shift from "fundamental right" to "often" and "usually" is a pretty transparent move on your part. But that aside, you're still just talking out of your ass. Of course there are cases where terms and conditions have been deemed to be unenforceable. But certainly not "most of the time" and definitely not in cases of obvious malicious activity.
Cute little reply though.
Its not a defense because this isnt a debate? Im not the judge, and you arent either. I dont care what you believe, because your belief doesnt change the law.
If you care, you can google it bud. You dont need me to find this for you.
But you clearly dont care about facts, you want to play gotcha. Poorly, but youre obviously only trying to make this a debate you can win.
Its not a debate, honey. Its sad you think it is.
Lmao, I just laid out all the facts. But sure, keep telling yourself that I just don't care about them.
I did Google it, bud. There's nothing out there that confirms what you're saying.
But obviously it would kill you to admit it, so I'll let you double-down, make another last dismissive, empty comment to grab the last word and feel good about yourself.
Edit: Look at that. Right on cue.
Facts? Oh, source?
E: no source? Lol so youre full of shit, by your own admission