4 ms·

Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom

Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's Society's "norms" around buying is that you own the thing you buy, which is why we have different words for buy, lease, rent, etc. Society's norms around theft is that you have taken something from someone else and they no longer have access to it. Sony is the one with the different definition. They're the ones that should proactively declare it. And no, codifying it in legalese and burying it in a EULA isn't declaring it as society would expect. To add: when Blockbuster existed, we all understood that renting a movie there was a temporary thing and buying the VHS at Best Buy was permanent. That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is.

Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
Yes, if your transaction contract redefines very common well understood words like “buy” it honestly should be nullified in the eyes of the law. It’s an inherently deceptive practice. Want to create new definitions for new words or phrases? Totally fine, but then Sony would need to replace the “buy” button with “blease” or “blent” or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has been playing at for entirely too long. Or just be honest and call it leasing.
- ncr100 1mo ago
  I disagree that it's "inherently deceptive". That claim deserve justification IMO. It's an obtuse-feeling abstraction. > ".. or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has .." Yep - I agree with the sentiment. Reality is, we have a set of systems in society capable of over-complicating (from a HUMAN sense) life, which reasonably can be seen to make life unpleasant for the less-enfranchised populations - those without a personal lawyer to review every action they take in life...e.g you and me.
ncr100 1mo ago
I get it. And the point I failed to make is they did redefine it via a normal process of contract. A bit of pedantry: > Sony is the one with the different definition Yes, agreed. And to build on that, Sony is using a normal legal vehicle, a contract to make that different definition. And customers of Sony are entering into contract .. which is very normal thing for customers to do when engaging in business relationships with businesses. > "That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is" Yep. To reinforce my yep, (tiredly - sorry but I am) - The yoke of bureaucracy and this complex economy we live in also rests upon us, the citizens. It is a burden - and an increasing risk as AI is unleashed into more and more of our systems, digital AND legal / policy / social. (AI has "infinite" memory so it can use circumlocution, taking advantage of overly complex and distracting Looping back: I could have said "it suuuuucks, f' the man, man!" as I do hold that view. However we are here, with legal contracts capable of imposing these broad and uncomfortable relationship constraints (eg between customer & business). SO the question, in my mind, is HOW are we going to understand WHAT we want society to look like, as presently and into the future an INHUMANLY complex set of rules is capable of limiting our expressive existence, leading reasonably to general dissatisfaction in life?

Lord-Jobo 1mo ago

Yes, if your transaction contract redefines very common well understood words like “buy” it honestly should be nullified in the eyes of the law. It’s an inherently deceptive practice. Want to create new definitions for new words or phrases? Totally fine, but then Sony would need to replace the “buy” button with “blease” or “blent” or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has been playing at for entirely too long. Or just be honest and call it leasing.

ncr100 1mo ago
I disagree that it's "inherently deceptive". That claim deserve justification IMO. It's an obtuse-feeling abstraction. > ".. or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has .." Yep - I agree with the sentiment. Reality is, we have a set of systems in society capable of over-complicating (from a HUMAN sense) life, which reasonably can be seen to make life unpleasant for the less-enfranchised populations - those without a personal lawyer to review every action they take in life...e.g you and me.

ncr100 1mo ago

I get it. And the point I failed to make is they did redefine it via a normal process of contract. A bit of pedantry: > Sony is the one with the different definition Yes, agreed. And to build on that, Sony is using a normal legal vehicle, a contract to make that different definition. And customers of Sony are entering into contract .. which is very normal thing for customers to do when engaging in business relationships with businesses. > "That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is" Yep. To reinforce my yep, (tiredly - sorry but I am) - The yoke of bureaucracy and this complex economy we live in also rests upon us, the citizens. It is a burden - and an increasing risk as AI is unleashed into more and more of our systems, digital AND legal / policy / social. (AI has "infinite" memory so it can use circumlocution, taking advantage of overly complex and distracting Looping back: I could have said "it suuuuucks, f' the man, man!" as I do hold that view. However we are here, with legal contracts capable of imposing these broad and uncomfortable relationship constraints (eg between customer & business). SO the question, in my mind, is HOW are we going to understand WHAT we want society to look like, as presently and into the future an INHUMANLY complex set of rules is capable of limiting our expressive existence, leading reasonably to general dissatisfaction in life?