5 ms·

Honestly, the top comment is more concerning: https://old.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/zndbku/tifu_by_accidentally_buying_two_google_pixels_and/j0grq9k/ https://

Honestly, the top comment is more concerning: https://old.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/zndbku/tifu_by_accidentally_buying_two_google_pixels_and/j0grq9k/ https://old.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/zndbku/tifu_by_accide... Account stolen. Obvious fraudulent charges. EA refuses to make it right. Customer rightfully disputes the charges. EA closes their account locking them out of an entire catalogue of content THEY HAD PAID for. This whole “you don’t really own digital content” ruse needs to be popped. A company shouldn’t be able to kick you off their platform if you have purchased content from them without refunding that content or providing you physical copies of the content they’re revoking your on demand access to. This whole “you give me $20 for a one time purchase and I’ll let you watch this movie for anywhere between 100ms and 100,000 years mostly at our discretion” isn’t business - it’s fraud and it’s shameful regulators haven’t stepped in yet. To be clear this is about digital purchases, not digital rentals and streaming services.

deweller 4y ago
This is a use case that public blockchains could solve for us. Having a decentralized proof of digital rights ownership on a public blockchain could separate the content provider (Amazon / Google / EA) from the actual media they provide by storing it on IPFS or some other decentralized file store. There would need to be a lot of work done to make this happen and big companies would have to get on board. It doesn't seem likely now, but it might happen with enough pressure or the right disruptive catalyst.
- Arrath 4y ago
  I just consider myself the owner of the content once I have paid for it, regardless of platform. I also consider that as meaning I have carte blanche to gain possession of that content however I see fit, since I have paid for it. Torrents and cracks to the rescue, no need for blockchain technobabble.
- halestock 4y ago
  > big companies would have to get on board Will never happen.
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  Or we could just go back to license keys as proof of ownership. Blockchain doesn't really add anything but complexity here.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  this seems like an awfully complicated alternative to just letting you download a file.
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  So time to play the same old game: does block chain provide any value here that a separate centralized DB doesn't? Let's see, can't you solve the exact same problem by simply having a centralized organization have a database of digital content ownership? Essentially a title record DB? Seems like it. And how does your blockchain solution solve the problem of someone is hacking the game and needs to be banned? Can the EA ban them or do hackers get to stay for good because it's on the blockchain? And if EA can ban them at their discretion then how did the block chain solve anything here? And so yet again someone appears to have thrown out "blockchain" when it provides zero value at all towards a solution. Please anytime anyone proposes blockchain, please explain how it is in any way better than a separate centralized DB in your proposed use case.
  - teux 4y ago
    Disclaimer: this is not my domain. But wouldn’t the blockchain give a decentralised record of ownership that was protected from corruption? If a single entity owns this database, how does it fare against attacks/bad actors, or highly capitalists companies like EA going in and editing it in their best interests. You need a truly good organisation to host that single DB and I’m not sure I tryst any of them at the moment. (Also thought I have a cursory knowledge of blockchain technology, so please correct me if I’m off.)
    - jonathanyc 4y ago
      After the Ethereum DAO exploit, the result was two blockchains: Ethereum Classic and Ethereum. Was that better protection against database manipulation than the existing legal system provides?
      - mattdesl 4y ago
        Yes, it’s much more democratic than the status quo in traditional online payment and digital asset systems. Users forked and had the choice to follow the DAO-revert chain. Another hard fork happened recently: PoS. There is still a PoW chain, for the small minority that wants to use it.
- thrashh 4y ago
  IPFS is an open network. Putting it on there would be like putting it on a public FTP server, which would be way simpler Your solution is equivalent to letting customers download their game installer after logging in and giving them a license key to unlock with, something we already can do, except your idea includes 10,000 more steps
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    > IPFS is an open network. Putting it on there would be like putting it on a public FTP server, which would be way simpler Not that I agree this is a good idea but IPFS decentralizes storage and provision of the content. A centralized server means the company can still arbitrarily block you.
    - soco 4y ago
      The companies will block you usually by deactivating your license key - which you always have to check online with their licensing server.
- cwmma 4y ago
  The hard part isn't the prove who owns what, it's coordinating with the actual providers to have them all agree to the same database and actually honor it
martyvis 4y ago
EA got hammered by the Aussie government consumer organisation in 2015 https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/electronic-arts-undertakes-to-provide-refunds-to-consumers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/electronic-arts-undert...
- Thaxll 4y ago
  Origin has now the best refund policy that I know of. It has been the case since 2014. https://www.ea.com/legal/great-game-guarantee-terms https://www.ea.com/legal/great-game-guarantee-terms
jcgoette 4y ago
How do you feel about 999-year leases? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease
- mywacaday 4y ago
  How about a 9000 year lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Brewery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Brewery
- gowld 4y ago
  That is a specified term so much better.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I am not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that sounds like a case for FTC. If it happened to me, I would be officially sending complaints to every single regulatory agency Google could fall under. The post does not state where customer was based, but depending on state state attorney general may get interested. It actually sounds like something that: a) public will understand and support b) help with re-election prospects
patmcc 4y ago
It's totally ridiculous. Imagine Walmart tried to do the same thing with physical goods; say any shoplifter Walmart catches immediately gets all their Walmart purchases taken back. We'd never allow it. Even if they were conflicted of theft, we wouldn't say "oh, sure, Walmart can come in and take your desk". Why have we allowed it with digital goods?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Walmart does do this with physical goods. They treat customers like criminals when they're exiting the store with their paid for property and expect to be able to inspect your belongings.
  - jehb 4y ago
    I highly encourage anyone who feels comfortable enough to not participate in this ruse. When I get asked to please see my receipt, I say "no thank you" and keep walking. I understand it comes from a place of privilege to feel safe in doing that, and I would never want someone who doesn't feel safe to do it, but we've got to put a stop to this idea that a business has any right to "inspect" your goods after a legitimate transaction is completed.
  - selecsosi 4y ago
    The comment here is addressing that, in this scenario, Wallmart would be able to come to your home and "claw back" physical goods like a table or couch that was paid for legitimately IN THE PAST due to THE LATER theft.
- maria2 4y ago
  I don’t think that many people would complain if shoplifters were forced to return legitimately purchased wares. After all, we fine people for shoplifting. Money is fungible. So the effect is similar.
  - mhaberl 4y ago
    > we fine people for shoplifting Walmart fines people for shoplifting? Of course not. That is a job of a government. Companies should not be a judge, jury and executioner.

deweller 4y ago

This is a use case that public blockchains could solve for us. Having a decentralized proof of digital rights ownership on a public blockchain could separate the content provider (Amazon / Google / EA) from the actual media they provide by storing it on IPFS or some other decentralized file store. There would need to be a lot of work done to make this happen and big companies would have to get on board. It doesn't seem likely now, but it might happen with enough pressure or the right disruptive catalyst.

Arrath 4y ago
I just consider myself the owner of the content once I have paid for it, regardless of platform. I also consider that as meaning I have carte blanche to gain possession of that content however I see fit, since I have paid for it. Torrents and cracks to the rescue, no need for blockchain technobabble.
halestock 4y ago
> big companies would have to get on board Will never happen.
nvrspyx 4y ago
Or we could just go back to license keys as proof of ownership. Blockchain doesn't really add anything but complexity here.
idiotsecant 4y ago
this seems like an awfully complicated alternative to just letting you download a file.
BoiledCabbage 4y ago
So time to play the same old game: does block chain provide any value here that a separate centralized DB doesn't? Let's see, can't you solve the exact same problem by simply having a centralized organization have a database of digital content ownership? Essentially a title record DB? Seems like it. And how does your blockchain solution solve the problem of someone is hacking the game and needs to be banned? Can the EA ban them or do hackers get to stay for good because it's on the blockchain? And if EA can ban them at their discretion then how did the block chain solve anything here? And so yet again someone appears to have thrown out "blockchain" when it provides zero value at all towards a solution. Please anytime anyone proposes blockchain, please explain how it is in any way better than a separate centralized DB in your proposed use case.
- teux 4y ago
  Disclaimer: this is not my domain. But wouldn’t the blockchain give a decentralised record of ownership that was protected from corruption? If a single entity owns this database, how does it fare against attacks/bad actors, or highly capitalists companies like EA going in and editing it in their best interests. You need a truly good organisation to host that single DB and I’m not sure I tryst any of them at the moment. (Also thought I have a cursory knowledge of blockchain technology, so please correct me if I’m off.)
  - jonathanyc 4y ago
    After the Ethereum DAO exploit, the result was two blockchains: Ethereum Classic and Ethereum. Was that better protection against database manipulation than the existing legal system provides?
    - mattdesl 4y ago
      Yes, it’s much more democratic than the status quo in traditional online payment and digital asset systems. Users forked and had the choice to follow the DAO-revert chain. Another hard fork happened recently: PoS. There is still a PoW chain, for the small minority that wants to use it.
thrashh 4y ago
IPFS is an open network. Putting it on there would be like putting it on a public FTP server, which would be way simpler Your solution is equivalent to letting customers download their game installer after logging in and giving them a license key to unlock with, something we already can do, except your idea includes 10,000 more steps
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > IPFS is an open network. Putting it on there would be like putting it on a public FTP server, which would be way simpler Not that I agree this is a good idea but IPFS decentralizes storage and provision of the content. A centralized server means the company can still arbitrarily block you.
  - soco 4y ago
    The companies will block you usually by deactivating your license key - which you always have to check online with their licensing server.
cwmma 4y ago
The hard part isn't the prove who owns what, it's coordinating with the actual providers to have them all agree to the same database and actually honor it

martyvis 4y ago

EA got hammered by the Aussie government consumer organisation in 2015 https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/electronic-arts-undertakes-to-provide-refunds-to-consumers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/electronic-arts-undert...

Thaxll 4y ago
Origin has now the best refund policy that I know of. It has been the case since 2014. https://www.ea.com/legal/great-game-guarantee-terms https://www.ea.com/legal/great-game-guarantee-terms

jcgoette 4y ago

How do you feel about 999-year leases? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease

mywacaday 4y ago
How about a 9000 year lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Brewery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Brewery
gowld 4y ago
That is a specified term so much better.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

I am not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that sounds like a case for FTC. If it happened to me, I would be officially sending complaints to every single regulatory agency Google could fall under. The post does not state where customer was based, but depending on state state attorney general may get interested. It actually sounds like something that: a) public will understand and support b) help with re-election prospects

patmcc 4y ago

It's totally ridiculous. Imagine Walmart tried to do the same thing with physical goods; say any shoplifter Walmart catches immediately gets all their Walmart purchases taken back. We'd never allow it. Even if they were conflicted of theft, we wouldn't say "oh, sure, Walmart can come in and take your desk". Why have we allowed it with digital goods?

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Walmart does do this with physical goods. They treat customers like criminals when they're exiting the store with their paid for property and expect to be able to inspect your belongings.
- jehb 4y ago
  I highly encourage anyone who feels comfortable enough to not participate in this ruse. When I get asked to please see my receipt, I say "no thank you" and keep walking. I understand it comes from a place of privilege to feel safe in doing that, and I would never want someone who doesn't feel safe to do it, but we've got to put a stop to this idea that a business has any right to "inspect" your goods after a legitimate transaction is completed.
- selecsosi 4y ago
  The comment here is addressing that, in this scenario, Wallmart would be able to come to your home and "claw back" physical goods like a table or couch that was paid for legitimately IN THE PAST due to THE LATER theft.
maria2 4y ago
I don’t think that many people would complain if shoplifters were forced to return legitimately purchased wares. After all, we fine people for shoplifting. Money is fungible. So the effect is similar.
- mhaberl 4y ago
  > we fine people for shoplifting Walmart fines people for shoplifting? Of course not. That is a job of a government. Companies should not be a judge, jury and executioner.