4 ms·

But I paid to be able to watch the show. Sony made a deliberate action to deprive me of that ability, should I not be made whole?

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Maybe, but that’s not for you to arbitrarily decide on your own.
- justinclift 3y ago
  So, instead of "arbitrarily" deciding that on their own... how should they decide that "properly"? By officially asking for new Terms of Service maybe?
  - itsboring 3y ago
    Probably a multi-year class action suit where everyone who got screwed over eventually gets $0.79 for their troubles while lawyers on both sides get a fat payday for creating exactly nothing. That’s what this precious “social contract” gets you, and I piss on it.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Law suit, but generally arbitration of some kind (the conceptual kind, not the legal term). Part of the social contract is that we don't resolve our own disputes beyond a certain level of seriousness, we allow neutral third parties to do so. Otherwise we'd have fights in the streets and mob justice.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      > we allow neutral third parties to do so. That hasn't been working out so well lately, thus the whole "alternative methods" thing being pretty popular in some circles these days.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        It works a hell of a lot better than "alternative methods" from a moral standpoint, however. The reality is that people have just become more okay hurting others.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Nah. Violence is the underlying motivation behind a lot of the world. Whether implied from people not following "the process" (your social contract), or people working around process that aren't working for them (corruption, etc). There's no better moral standpoint in either, it's always a case by case basis.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So to be clear, your argument in favor of vigilantism being moral (which you call violence despite it not being so) is that it's effective?
        justinclift 3y ago
        Heh Heh Heh Perhaps you need to re-read things a bit? :)
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So yes? Or no? Clarify.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Neither of those answers. Please actually read and think about what I wrote a few comments back. :)
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    - Capricorn2481 3y ago
      "just be rich"
- skeaker 3y ago
  Why are companies allowed to arbitrarily break the contract by removing something you paid for, but you aren't?
tsimionescu 3y ago
I think they mean, you could have neither bought nor pirated the content, knowing that the terms Discovery is offering are very one-sided (I am presuimg the license agreement explicitly stipulated that they were allowed to do what they did). Either way, when one party breaks their contract, you sue them in a court of law. You don't seek remedies on your own.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Maybe, but that’s not for you to arbitrarily decide on your own.

justinclift 3y ago
So, instead of "arbitrarily" deciding that on their own... how should they decide that "properly"? By officially asking for new Terms of Service maybe?
- itsboring 3y ago
  Probably a multi-year class action suit where everyone who got screwed over eventually gets $0.79 for their troubles while lawyers on both sides get a fat payday for creating exactly nothing. That’s what this precious “social contract” gets you, and I piss on it.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Law suit, but generally arbitration of some kind (the conceptual kind, not the legal term). Part of the social contract is that we don't resolve our own disputes beyond a certain level of seriousness, we allow neutral third parties to do so. Otherwise we'd have fights in the streets and mob justice.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > we allow neutral third parties to do so. That hasn't been working out so well lately, thus the whole "alternative methods" thing being pretty popular in some circles these days.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      It works a hell of a lot better than "alternative methods" from a moral standpoint, however. The reality is that people have just become more okay hurting others.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        Nah. Violence is the underlying motivation behind a lot of the world. Whether implied from people not following "the process" (your social contract), or people working around process that aren't working for them (corruption, etc). There's no better moral standpoint in either, it's always a case by case basis.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So to be clear, your argument in favor of vigilantism being moral (which you call violence despite it not being so) is that it's effective?
        justinclift 3y ago
        Heh Heh Heh Perhaps you need to re-read things a bit? :)
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So yes? Or no? Clarify.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Neither of those answers. Please actually read and think about what I wrote a few comments back. :)
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    "just be rich"
skeaker 3y ago
Why are companies allowed to arbitrarily break the contract by removing something you paid for, but you aren't?

tsimionescu 3y ago

I think they mean, you could have neither bought nor pirated the content, knowing that the terms Discovery is offering are very one-sided (I am presuimg the license agreement explicitly stipulated that they were allowed to do what they did). Either way, when one party breaks their contract, you sue them in a court of law. You don't seek remedies on your own.