This is my summation, respond in kind if you are so inclined.
Strazdas said:
Always online DRM and removal of second hand sale is not anti-consumer?
yeah im not sure if i should even bother reading further after such nonensense.
And that is because you don't actually understand what you are arguing against. You do not own the content, period. You don't, there is no law that would grant you ownership of any copyrighted media content that you buy. Not one. Any more than you own the recipe for coke after buying a can from a machine. Got it? You own a license, you paid for the right to use that content, nothing more. Your opinions on what consumers are entitled to, are not relevant. You may THINK a consumer is entitled to content redistribution, you would however be mistaken.
You can transfer your license(which in the case of physical media constitutes selling the disc), but you do not have the right to do anything you like with that content. Digital media has many methods of circumventing that limitation. DRM, and any practice used to prevent users from license duplication is not inherently anti-consumer. Again, you may not like it, but your displeasure, does not, in and of itself make it a bad thing.
SNIP. See MS controlling their eco system, like apple means they get to dictate how publishers interact with consumers, and that is not a bad thing.
As was clearly shown, the average consumer is not willing and in many instances not able to sacrifice such control for some magical "cloud computing" that most of them are never going to use.
Also if you think apples dictatorship of its ecosystem is a good example i dread to think what you would consider a bad one. What apple does with its ecosystems is probably on pa with actions where nintendo shuts down programs because 2 people were found misusing them.
Really? I think you need to check your data on who is and isn't using such services, because what you said sounds like a whole lot of speculation. The growth in digital distribution on both consoles seriously undermines everything you just said. The ONLY problem with any of this is that the game industry is not pricing digital on par with physical media. THAT is ant-consumer, but it is also more a publisher thing than anything to do with MS or Sony.
As soon as there is user value beyond the benefits a function has to the creator, it is a feature. Let's say that most people who want XBOX One have a 360. They have accounts, purchases, music, avatar crap, gamerscore, etc. All would require a day one update to sync with the new system, so the ONLY way to save progress as YOU, on either system, would be such an update. Now maybe you could copy to a USB or something, but in the end, maintaining history between devices is not a trivial thing and it will always require some type of synchronization. Day one patch allows for use offline, doesn't mean connecting would not have been necessary without it...
Im not even sure. So you are arguing that it is GOOD that we need to do things over the internet instead of storing our own media?
I am arguing that there are pro's and con's to this type of functionality, something I have been saying since the first post. You CHOOSE to see just the con's, that does not in and of itself make what MS and Sony and Apple are doing bad. It can be both good and bad for the consumer, I contend that a day one patch, while annoying for some, will have NO negative effect on the majority of the user base and that statement is backed up by the facts that 1.) MS decided to go this route, and 2.) Most of the complaints about launch are about the same type of small percentage hardware failures as PS4, and/or some glitches in day one software.
No they wouldn't.
http://newleaflegal.com/no-you-dont-own-your-itunes-music/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/digital-media-licensed-not-owned
There is a lot more precedent, but you get the idea.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/valve-steam-and-used-games-the-battle-for-resale-rights-may-be-fought-in-ge
The ruling confirmed that the European concept of ?exhaustion,? which states that product sellers ?exhaust? their rights to the product once it's been sold, also applies to digital goods. It's very similar to the US's first-sale doctrine.
And there are just as many rulings, if not more, that support my argument. None of them, either in support, or against second party resale/transfer, grant the user copyright ownership. Can you sell your digital stuff? That is the question, which does not have a definitive answer. MS controlling their content, or any other company for that matter, not anti-consumer. Sorry, you will NEVER own the complete rights to digital media, and when you download something, your assumption should be that your ability to use that content is dependent on the retention of your license, which BTW is now more secure because of cloud storage of your history and profile.
Sadly, since you don't actually own the content, you are wrong.
I do. First sale doctrine applies.
You DO NOT own the CONTENT. You can re-sell your copy, but you do not have any rights beyond that. Digital media IS different, which is why there is so much debate, but you thinking it should just belong to you after purchase is an opinion, not a fact.
But my creative work? Yeah that belongs to me, not the listener, not a re-seller. Me. Consumers are under the false impression that they own this content, trust me, you don't.
You have created an item. You have sold it. That item now belongs to the buyer.
No it doesn't, copyright says otherwise. No need for further discussion, you are incorrect. If you copy my CD and sell it, you have technically broken the law. I don't necessarily think it is a big deal, but technically speaking, you stole from me. Now, one could argue your rights to distribute copies in your household, and say that digital media should be enabled for any device you own. That I could agree with. But as for being able to do anything you like with it, yeah no, I retain the distribution rights to my music, you are allowed to hear it because you bought a non-exclusive license, nothing more.
Again, you missed the point. The point being, technology is always changing, sometimes to fix errors, sometimes to enhance the experience. They are allowing the console to function BEYOND it's intended and presented use.
Once again ,the whole point is that new technology used here is not "allowing" the console, but "Forcing" it. that is the problem. Noone would have problem with it if it was optional. it was not.
1.) You don't have to buy a new console.
2.) The patch, while required, makes being on-line optional, the fact that MS planned the device as constantly connected is irrelevant to the debate, unless you simply want to complain about a non issue.
Always online ensures a LOT of consistency with their systems. It allows for a more streamlined update process and has the potential for less consumer issues. It reduces customer service costs, and it allows for more rapid updates. It promotes connectivity between users and it makes the device a constant in peoples day to day. It has the POTENTIAL to be used to control and corral users, and when it fails, it leaves consumers out in the cold. Pro's and Con's.
None of which are inherently "anti-consumer" which has always been my primary argument. YOU may not like it, but that does not mean the intent was malicious, if you can't see that, then I truly don't know what else to say.
I rest my case. If you rebutt, my only response will be an acknowledgement of that response, we have both exhausted our points IMO.
