Are they planning to run uploaded anxiety?
- 1 Post
- 82 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
Cake day: August 5th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
What headphone jack?
It is their customary response when a person quits the service, the plan is no longer offered etc that the data remains in read only mode for an unspecified period of time during which they do not any longer take payments for the service. This happened previously to people who exceeded the limit for Gmail free storage too. 15GB of storage free with a Gmail account but if you exceed that (say had Google One and exceeded that and then canceled your Google One subscription) your files wouldn’t automatically be deleted.
Actually, I just read one of my emails from Google about their change from drive storage to Google one storage. It claims if I exceed my storage limit for up to two years my entire account will be deleted, not just my files. Effective June 1, 2021. I have a consumer account, but I’m assuming there is an equitable set of policies for gsuite/business users.
Which is funny considering that apples current implementation is less secure because sending the non-imessage users from iMessage breaks the encryption, meaning everything sent to a non-imessage recipient is sent in plain text.
Technically false. Google is an ISP. But they aren’t using their position as an ISP to slow down traffic or fast track other traffic in this instance so no it has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Other than being relieved when they removed the podcast from Google play music (after shoehorning it into the GPM app for no good reason), I didn’t really use this much. Pocketcasts has pretty much always done what I needed.
We were previously which I believe is what op is referring to. I was one of the original sign ups for GPM back when it was $7.99 per month and I haven’t received a price increase until now. I was “grandfathered in” to the old price.
If they could stop trying to foist nitro on me that would be great.
Did you take into account that WB just merged discovery with HBO which means those shows will more than likely be on the HBO streaming platform which is why WB is not renewing Sony’s licensing agreement?
Those terms (EULA) are included at least twice. The first time when you set up a Sony system such as a PlayStation, and again when you download a streaming app, and again once you decide to purchase something. So there is no “it only showed up after a consumer paid” excuse here. Meaning When these consumers downloaded the discover app they agreed to WB’s TOS or EULA.
You don’t have any proof that they chose a legal contract that was cheaper or that the specified time limit was Sony’s rather than WB’s. You make a lot of assumptions here.
https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/psn-terms-of-service/
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/
https://nofilmschool.com/warner-bros-deleting-purchased-digital-content
Disney did this same thing before they launched Disney+. Paramount and other license holders have done the same.
They can’t agree to do a charge back unless you bought it really recently (within 120 days of purchase), and then only if you can prove you didn’t receive the item in question which you did.
There is. That’s what I’m telling you. The agreement between the customer and Sony stipulates that the license can be revoked by the license holder at any time and in that case their purchases will not be reimbursed. That language is there specifically to protect them.
But either way you’re failing to take the main point into account which is that WB is not facing backlash for this, but Sony is. Both of them should face this backlash together.
“SONY grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license to use the SOFTWARE solely in connection with your compatible device (including, but not limited to, SONY’s products which the SOFTWARE is embedded in or bundled with) (“DEVICE”) solely in accordance with this EULA and the usage instructions as may be made available to you by SONY or the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS. SONY and the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS expressly reserve all rights, title and interest (including, but not limited to, all intellectual property rights) in and to the SOFTWARE that this EULA does not specifically grant to you.”
The license is revoked and is not transferable. Believe me when I say that none of the companies that have had this issue previously have reimbursed their customers in any countries that I can find due to riders like this.
This is an article from the last time this happened with Sony.
You should go read the licensing agreement. For all the companies, not just Sony because like I said before they all have done this. WB would sue Sony into the ground for breech of contract if they didn’t remove those shows. They’re doing what they are legally obligated to do. I’m not advocating for letting sony off the hook here. I’m saying this will continue to happen every time a license holder decides to cut out the middleman and make their own streaming service, and unless you hold those license holders accountable it will keep happening because it is legal.
This has happened to date with Sony at least once before, Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, and at least half a dozen other streaming services. Nobody ever wants to hold the supplier liable. And your
apologyanalogy doesn’t work. The people got their streamed media. The product was delivered. The license to enjoy that media was for an unspecified time, which has now come to an end because the license holder of that media has decided they don’t want you to have it in that form anymore. They’re the bad guy here. In the event that you say bought physical discs, and they were never delivered because shortly after you made your order, the company you bought from lost the right to sell them they would refund you because they themselves would be refunded when they sent all that physical media back to the supplier. But in this case that’s not what’s happening. So it’s not a one for one analog.
The only reasons they would be aware of this to sue you would be if you or someone else told them. The likelihood of that is pretty much nil unless you do something that is illegal (like selling ripped media), in which case they’re more likely to just come after you for that.
But per the agreement you the customer signed when you bought your license to enjoy that media it is not legally Sony’s problem.
This happens just about every single time a license holder pulls their stuff from any online service. It’s happened with all the big names. Spotify, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. there’s always a major outcry about it but usually it’s not the service itself but the license holder who is at fault. My view is we should start holding them accountable.
Because the only reason Sony is pulling these shows is because the license holder is demanding they do so. The license holder is WB. They are who Sony paid in order to provide you with a license to enjoy whatever media you bought. They are not reimbursing Sony to give you a refund.
Not from Sony, but nobody has tried to get a refund from WB or whoever owns Discovery.
Public transit for the masses would absolutely create more sprawl. We already have people living there. Are we just going to ignore those people?
I actually was wondering too. Back in the day they did because they were competing with so many other bargain department stores. But a lot of those went out of business and Walmart far outpaced most of the rest because of how many locations they have especially in smaller communities where they’ve even supplanted grocery stores and so on. At this rate people shop at Walmart because they have to mostly.
How much of that money is theirs to refund? A portion of that sale went to WB? Why is WB not being asked to give a refund?
But in the world of electronics fuses and circuit breakers exist to trip when too much voltage is applied to protect the circuit. That’s their generally agreed upon definition.