3 ms·

> Although I partially applaud what Anna's Archive is doing, I like their model the least (they want to CHARGE to download while doing Copyright infringement?).

> Although I partially applaud what Anna's Archive is doing, I like their model the least (they want to CHARGE to download while doing Copyright infringement?). This is bollocks. AA gives users a means of paying to enjoy faster speeds as a means of contributing to costs, but the downloads are free to anyone who doesn't want to pay, and very often quick enough.

tentacleuno 3mo ago
Whilst it pays for the service (and, in that respect, may be a necessary evil), it's morally questionable (at minimum) to charge for things that, by law, aren't yours in the first place.
- dessimus 3mo ago
  Less morally questionable than claiming to users they are "buying" access to media that can be revoked at any point in the future with no recompense, of course referring to Sony and Amazon.
  - tentacleuno 2mo ago
    I do think the language around that needs to change, yes -- misleadingly labelling renting as buying is wrong and deliberately confusing. The previous physical ownership model was a lot more secure, though the implementation of DVDs does seem to be diminishing throughout the gaming sector. PlayStation recently sent out emails regarding this, effectively reminding people that they did not, in fact, own what they purchased[0]. It's very confusing - someone here would have a much higher chance of knowing that it's not a direct purchase or right to ownership, though I'll bet most of the general public do not. [0]: https://windowsreport.com/sony-emails-playstation-users-to-remind-that-digital-games-are-licensed-not-owned/ https://windowsreport.com/sony-emails-playstation-users-to-r...
- insane_dreamer 3mo ago
  they're not charging for the content -- they're charging for the extra bandwidth if you want faster access
  - tentacleuno 2mo ago
    They are inherently charging for access to copyrighted content that they don't have the rights to distribute (even after being served with lawsuits), though. I'm not explicitly disavowing it, but I can see why it would raise questions and why it would give litigators a much stronger case - once you start accepting money, a lot of things change. I will say, however, that they've gone up against some very scary people with very large teams of lawyers, and for that I salute them.

tentacleuno 3mo ago

Whilst it pays for the service (and, in that respect, may be a necessary evil), it's morally questionable (at minimum) to charge for things that, by law, aren't yours in the first place.

dessimus 3mo ago
Less morally questionable than claiming to users they are "buying" access to media that can be revoked at any point in the future with no recompense, of course referring to Sony and Amazon.
- tentacleuno 2mo ago
  I do think the language around that needs to change, yes -- misleadingly labelling renting as buying is wrong and deliberately confusing. The previous physical ownership model was a lot more secure, though the implementation of DVDs does seem to be diminishing throughout the gaming sector. PlayStation recently sent out emails regarding this, effectively reminding people that they did not, in fact, own what they purchased[0]. It's very confusing - someone here would have a much higher chance of knowing that it's not a direct purchase or right to ownership, though I'll bet most of the general public do not. [0]: https://windowsreport.com/sony-emails-playstation-users-to-remind-that-digital-games-are-licensed-not-owned/ https://windowsreport.com/sony-emails-playstation-users-to-r...
insane_dreamer 3mo ago
they're not charging for the content -- they're charging for the extra bandwidth if you want faster access
- tentacleuno 2mo ago
  They are inherently charging for access to copyrighted content that they don't have the rights to distribute (even after being served with lawsuits), though. I'm not explicitly disavowing it, but I can see why it would raise questions and why it would give litigators a much stronger case - once you start accepting money, a lot of things change. I will say, however, that they've gone up against some very scary people with very large teams of lawyers, and for that I salute them.