nfw2

Noam Chomsky has been wrong about LLMs for longer

Organize a class action then if you believe so. Fraud is illegal

Evergreen licenses are incredibly common when selling software, not just games.

Your suggestions are either:

- make publishers distribute goods without anti-piracy protection

- make buyers pay for games on an ongoing basis rather than just once

Publishers and buyers are generally happy with the current exchange as is even if you aren't. Digital games sales are increasing rapidly ever year while physical sales are declining. Why do you get to be the gaming czar?

There IS a reason they don't make it possible to download the game copies directly, which is it becomes trivially easy to perfectly replicate and distribute new copies online, which is not true of any physical good.

People who aren't overly-online forum denizens only care about this issue insofar as it affects them, and the only way it affects people in the real world is when they lose access to online games when the server shuts down. Offline games don't get access revoked in practice.

The term you are looking for is straw man

Have any of the books bought on Kindle turned into rocks or can their buyers read them again if they want to?

I can still play the games I bought on the nintendo switch 8 years ago.

Why carry water for billion companies?

All companies at a certain scale are billion dollar companies. Also, how much money a company has is unrelated to whether they violated consumer rights or not. But, tangentially, I do generally respect entities that fund creative endeavors moreso than I respect gamers who go online to bemoan how persecuted they are

Using the word "Buy" to mean buy a license, then having an agreement where the details of the license are explained isn't fraud lol

That is what I suggested. The other poster said what you are suggesting shouldn't be allowed, not me.

Rent and Subscribe would NOT be clear because they imply ongoing payment. Consumers care mostly about if they are paying money once or on an ongoing basis, not abstract things like DRM.

Access to an online server is clearly a service, hence the word "server"

The word subjective is not itself subjective. People understand the definition of the word subjective.

Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected?

Because we have a free market not a command economy? Publishers can sell whatever they want

An online server is a service. People don't lose access to offline games, generally speaking.

1. Network transfer time depends on size of data payload and will basically always dwarf cpu operations unless something is seriously messed up

2. Query performance is dependent on the query and table size. They won't all be < 1msec. Not everything can be an indexed O(1) lookup

3. Generally speaking, network RTT and query performance is going to dwarf time for ORM to parse the result

4. A raw SQL driver ALSO needs to parse the result if you want to do anything with the data in the general purpose language

1. Because you referred to lines of code as the way to suggest SQL is obvious better, not performance

2. No, my point was that talking about code clarity was a distraction because to talk about lines of code as a determinant of performance is clearly wrong.

3. Tangentially, yes, if some behavior takes 100 lines of general purpose code to express, I would rather read it in the general purpose language than in SQL even if the SQL was fewer lines. It's hard to imagine why this would ever be the case though.

Obviously, this means using raw SQL instead of an ORM, as the article was discussing the trade-offs of the two and wasn't a 101 course on what SQL is

As yes, the poor, ignorant average joe, who doesn't realize the game they buy on the PLAYSTATION store needs PLAYSTATION to work in order to play it. If only enough bloggers wrote enough articles to enlighten them, then they would join the mob and demand forever access to the games they play for 3 weeks then never play again.

I am understandably pissed that Apple no longer makes small 5-inch iphones because I like them. But other consumers like the bigger phones, so Apple discontinued the mini line.

Is Apple doing me an injustice by not selling me the good that I want?

Is this a question of rights or consumer preferences?

This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anything.

Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store? Does anyone really thing Buy here means they will be able to download the game onto their computer and play it there?

Fine, pass a regulation that makes online stores change the word to license or whatever. Will that relieve your sense of persecution? Or would just you find another way to cast game publishers as the conniving evil empire (market control, collusion to reduce consumer options, etc.) because they aren't giving you what you want?

There is no perfect word. Ticket and pass imply a fixed duration lease, not an indefinite one. Membership implies continual payments.

If someone goes to the playstation store to buy a playstation game, you don't think it's clear that they can only play the game on playstation? I think consumers understand what they are buying even if they don't think in terms like revocable licenses and drm. They aren't ignorant just because they don't care about these abstract issues that don't affect their lives at all, practically speaking.

The vast majority of consumers don't care or think about this at all. It's a loud and tiny minority who imagine this great injustice will lead to some groundswell of rallied consumer support if they just write more blog posts about it.

In reality, if people get continual access to a digital game, the hypothetical case where they might lose access to it isn't all that troubling. And even if the license was specifically a year-term rental or something, most people wouldn't flinch because they go on with their lives after finishing a game.

It's also so convenient to ignore all the reasons the current system is the way it is.

1. Digital goods are just bits and free to copy and distribute online. Publishers use DRM because piracy is otherwise prevent, and they have a right to protect their IP.

2. Publishers can distribute the content that they develop however they see fit. Gamers who didn't make the game aren't owed something by right. Don't purchase the game if the license terms aren't amenable to you. It's a game, not a vital good.

3. Disk drives are a pointless pain-in-the-ass to manufacture if most people don't want them anyway.

Anything that you BUY needs to be your property.

This is obviously absurd as a universal rule. If I "buy" a night in a hotel room, I should own the hotel room? If I order a taxi, I should own the taxi? If I ride a bikeshare e-bike across town, I should own the bike?

Whether rent is appropriate or exploitative for a certain product or industry is a fair question, but to say renting should not exist as a concept at all for anything just doesn't work.

Mean spirited sure, ad hominem, no. It's satirizing the argument, not personal traits unrelated to the argument

It's not a legal defense strategy, it's a social engineering strategy

The reason given to use raw SQL is for the performance not the perceived code clarity.

I would say a combination of already being rich, being old, and insider trading. Congress can't actually take personal funds from lobbyists legally.

Maybe if someone is in Congress, they can skirt the law around lobbyist gifts due to your position of power, but 1. it doesn't sound very plausible that someone becomes a multimillionaire by squirreling away illegal gifts or campaign funds and 2. to become I doubt small town city councils making these decisions are in a similar place. Most of reality is boring and not like the movies.

If this is the case why would local officials permit them?

They consume land? Where does the land go?