Recently, Sony has been caught in a whirlpool, because one of its announcements has caused strong dissatisfaction among consumers around the world. The announcement said that due to copyright agreement issues, the Playcation streaming service will remove all episodes of Discovery by the end of the year, and users who have purchased will not be able to continue** or even ** content will not be spared. This situation is like a domestic **platform suddenly notifying users that all Jay Chou** purchased before will be removed, regardless of whether it has been **local**, it will not be possible**. This move has undoubtedly caused many paying users to feel that their rights and interests have been damaged.
Sony's initial statement did not mention any compensation package, which caused an uproar on the Internet. Many affected consumers have spoken out and demanded a refund from Sony as compensation, and many well-known overseas bloggers have also made ** to condemn Sony's move, questioning its respect for consumer rights. Under pressure from the outside world, Sony updated its statement on December 21, announcing that it had reached a new copyright agreement with Disney, and the related TV series will no longer be taken off the shelves. However, the controversy surrounding the right to buy and use digital content has not subsided.
In fact, the reason why this matter has attracted so much attention is that it reveals the reality that in today's copyright era, whether buying Apple apps, digital games on consoles, or movies and memberships, consumers often overlook the fact that manufacturers have the right to revoke content we have already purchased, and this is often quietly evaded in lengthy and little-read user license agreements.
In the face of the power of capital, consumers are particularly vulnerable. So, when legal access is blocked, an ironic but real question emerges: should consumers who have already paid for a piece of content, but who are unable to access it properly due to the manufacturer's reasons, choose to use piracy to regain access to that content, should it still be considered morally and legally wrong? For example, if Sony really removes all episodes of the Discovery Channel, or if the game purchased by a player on Steam cannot be played due to an abnormal account, and can only experience the full content through **piracy, can the "piracy" in this case be understood as a helpless move?
Moreover, there are some cases in reality, such as the deleted version of some movies launched on domestic platforms, and the picture quality is not as clear as that of piracy. In this case, if a user buys a genuine copy and finds that the experience is inferior to piracy, can they simply blame it for using piracy? Therefore, is the core of the piracy problem related to the payment itself, or is it concerned with the essential attributes of the content?
Going back to Sony's case, the headline of a widely circulated article made the point: "If buying doesn't mean owning, then piracy isn't stealing." In today's Internet era, digital content such as software and games has become a source of profit for major companies, and it is also the hardest hit area of piracy. How to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers when purchasing and consuming digital content under the market monopoly of large companies is undoubtedly an important issue that needs long-term attention and attention.
Please watch the fireworks