• Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    To which I said something like ‘But all that does is highlight the problem without actually changing the situation.’

    I think the idea is, that the minimally invasive regulation only has to fix the information imbalance between producer and consumer. Then, once the consumer has all the information, they can make an informed racional market actor descision. That’s supposed to price shitty rip offs out of the market eventually.

    … yeah I don’t believe it works either.

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      It doesn’t make any sense if the whole market is shitty rip offs.

      In this case I’m not saying all games are bad, shitty games, but they are all shitty rip offs in the sense that they all legally can, and many do just suddenly deactivate, and you’re not even compensated for this.

      The whole fundamental legal trick the software industry has pulled is making everything into a license for an ongoing service, as opposed to a consumer good.

      And the problem is that this is now infecting everything, expanding as much as possible into anything with a chip in it.

      Even if the consumer is perfectly informed, it doesn’t matter if the entire market is full of fundamentally unjust bullshit, as there aren’t any alternatives.

      All you get is consumers who are now informed that their digital goods can poof out of existence with no recourse.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’re just gonna go all in on marketing to Kyle and his CoD buddies, and ignore the nerds who care about weird shit like ownership.