Sections

ICO HD heading to PS Vita via remote play patch

Monday, 3rd September 2012 12:49 GMT By Dave Cook

ICO HD was teased as running on PS Vita by Sony worldwide studios president Shuhei Yoshida this morning. The developer has confirmed that the game will head to PS Vita soon, pending a remote play patch for the HD edition.

Talking on Twitter, Yoshida apolgised, “Sorry to tease you, I was play testing Ico HD Remote Play on PS Vita. We are almost ready with a patch. Beautiful on OLED. More info soon.”

Cheers CVG.

Here’s the shot if you missed it:

Latest

64 Comments

  1. ps3fanboy

    so this patch will not work for the ones that have bought the disc version?… only for the rental boys at psn… you guys really try to make it hard for people that LIKE TO OWN WHAT THEY PAY FOR!… I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO YOU GREEDY MONEY SUCKERS, FUCK OFF!!!1

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Christopher Jack

    Which is another reason why physical retail copies will soon be digitaly tied to your account like Steam. You lose your disk or it becomes unreadable/broken, just download it. :)

    #2 2 years ago
  3. ps3fanboy

    i dont like steam at all its crap and just an alternate psn digital junkyard. i am not throwing my money at any of that shit, you can just throw your hard earned money in the toilet and flush it away, and that is what you do. if you want to play the games in 10-20 years you cant with this digital crap… so if this crap keep going on i will quit gaming, there is no point anymore.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. ManuOtaku

    #”2 “Which is another reason why physical retail copies will soon be digitaly tied to your account like Steam”

    I think thats precisely what ps3 fanboy meant, the account which the provider holds the key, is not yours per se, they can block it as they see fit, changing TOS and EULAS left and right, therefore we need a healthy legal system that establish an equal treatment to the provider and the end user, in the mean time i hope this wont come to fructition, until we have an good legal evironment for this type of transactions.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Fin

    There’s no mention of it being only the PSN edition in any of Yosp’s tweets (unless you were to assume “ICO HD” means “ICO PSN”).

    #5 2 years ago
  6. ps3fanboy

    @4

    correct you as a customers have no laws when you buy their digital crap, it is an very expensive rental system at theirs premise. what should be done by law is make these game companies send you a disc with the stuff you buy digital for your own keeping. then it would be a fair game…

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Christopher Jack

    It’s about time you guys face it, consoles are becoming more PC-like every transition. From playing CDs & DVDs, to online functionality, local media storage & even web browsers. The one thing I hope that doesn’t happen with next gen is mandatory installs. One of the benefits of previous gen consoles was the ability to insert a disk & play it immediately. The PS3 & to a lesser extent, X360 killed that to some degree.. The PS3 requiring installs for certain games & both requiring day one patches(!).

    #7 2 years ago
  8. ps3fanboy

    @5

    they mention “PSN EDITION”, if this patch would have been for all version they would not have said that.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. ManuOtaku

    #7 i am not against that, i just want a healthy environment that protect us, the consumers, in equal terms as the providers of the service, right now the consumers doesnt have that, therefore asking and wanting this legal system for this kind of transactions is not bad, and hasnt anything to do with not wanting the evolution of the gaming industry.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. ps3fanboy

    @7

    yeah that “DAY ONE PATCHES” is another thing that kills the gaming enjoyment. because you know one day that patch is not available, like 10-20 years. then the game will be so bug ridden it will not be playable…

    so its always best to wait and see, never be a first day buyer.. if the game cant be played properly without a patch, it ain’t worth the money, its junk. you dont go buy fresh molded bread do you?…

    #10 2 years ago
  11. DrDamn

    It’s a patch for ICO HD –

    https://twitter.com/yosp/status/242551021308633088

    #11 2 years ago
  12. ps3fanboy

    @11

    yes mister Shuhei Yoshida, we are talking about the ico hd version for the ps3 here. not the ps2 version…

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Fin

    @8

    No, there is no mention of PSN edition in Yosp’s tweets. Check again.
    CVG reported it incorrectly.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. DrDamn

    @12
    So what’s the big rant about then?

    #14 2 years ago
  15. ps3fanboy

    @14

    retail over digital… still stands.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Gama_888

    Correct me if I’m wrong here,
    but this is remote play, so aslong as you have the game on ps3 you will be able to stream it to your vita. Physical or digital copy, but ur disk will need to be in the ps3.

    Infact if this is the case that would be a big advantage for having the digital copy

    #16 2 years ago
  17. ps3fanboy

    @16

    owning digital games on a 10-20 year old console(when that time comes), is sure a BIG advantage…

    #17 2 years ago
  18. DrDamn

    @17
    I bought a couple of PSP games digitally which I have now downloaded again, for free, for use on my Vita. Had I bought them at retail I’d be lumbered with useless UMDs. It can work in your favour too. Any PSOne classics I buy can also be used on both the PS3 and Vita. Another advantage.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. ps3fanboy

    @18

    what if sony decided that they should not let you get psp and psone classic, they could, with an forced system update. what option would that have given you, none… your at theirs premise not yours, as a customer that give them your money you have nothing to say. is that the future you want for your gaming hobby?…

    #19 2 years ago
  20. DrDamn

    If a company acts like that they aren’t going to survive that long are they? Sure it’s possible, but it’s very unlikely. Massively outweighed by the convenience of being able to access my entire game collection without faffing with discs and cards.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. ManuOtaku

    #19 I agree with you especially looking at the Other OS issue with the ps3, and/or the steam change of TOS recently, thats the reason i stated we need a healthy legal system in place prior this becomes a reality, then i will not have any qualms about it, but thinking on establishing this in the future without doing the legal system that rules this type of transactions is wrong, first do the legal system, rules, etc, then establish the infraestructure.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. Joe Musashi

    Except, folks, you are not buying the software. You are buying ACCESS to the software. Huge difference.

    JM

    #22 2 years ago
  23. ManuOtaku

    #22 no, of course i look into that, the fact is that i do know that i use a license under certain specific conditions, and i do also know becuase of the games being physical, they cannot control it, and that is the key issue the combination of ownership-control, in both cases i dont have the complete ownership, thats true, but in one i have the control within the rights, in the other i dont have the control, the provider does have the control, the key to the account, hence the sentiment, and the need for a healthy legal system, that is equal for all the parts involve.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Joe Musashi

    If you don’t own it then there’s no reason for a legal system to be put in place to service the rights you don’t have.

    There is no equality required for “all the parts involve”. You don’t own the software. You’re not equal to those that do.

    JM

    #24 2 years ago
  25. DSB

    @23 How can’t they control it because it’s physical? All they have to do is call the cops and get a warrant.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. OrbitMonkey

    Well Bruce Willis is taking Apple to court over access to his iTune collection. He wants to be able pass them onto his daughter… But can’t as he doesn’t “own” them.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. ManuOtaku

    #24 yes we need it, because they have the control of the account, which in the end is not mine is theirs, they can block it, cancell it, for whatever reason, change the TOS, EULAS etc, diminishing my rights with force up updates, therefore the games i did bought,that are not physical are within the account,and i will not have access to them, therefore there is the need for a legal system for that, in a client-provider transaction, there is always the need for a healthy equal legal environment, and moreso a one that cares for the rights of its customers.

    #25 Well technical speaking they can, but i meant how they keep control over physical media i all regions of the world? to all the people?, the effort to do that is hughe, money, time and workforce, and for that is very difficult to do with physical media, i mean to keep an eye on all physical media, and what you do with it, not so with digital media.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. ps3fanboy

    @26

    and people saying going digital is the best thing ever and it is the future… then they discover i am only renting the stuff, LOL!… been sleeping under a rock much?…

    #28 2 years ago
  29. Joe Musashi

    @27 You’re basically asking for rights to be put in place so that your can claim ownership on things you don’t own. That’s not going to happen.

    Furthermore, just because rules cannot be enforced does not mean that your willingness to break them puts you in the right. Your attitude towards physical media reeks of entitlement.

    JM

    #29 2 years ago
  30. ManuOtaku

    #29 Of course is entitlement, as much as the provider of the service claims their entitlement over the user with the account, not just us the users claim entitlement here , it goes both ways in reality, therefore is the clash of two entitlements here, now the question is who needs the legal system the most?, right now is the consumer, because they can change everything they want with force up updates, the user doesnt have and/or run the service, the provider does, hence they have all the advantadges, the user is at their mercy, what is good for the goose is good for the grander, we need to be equals, i mean the legal system should favor in equal terms all the parts involve, not just the provider, which is how is standing now, for the lack of it.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. OrbitMonkey

    Nicely put Manu :-)

    #31 2 years ago
  32. Joe Musashi

    There is no clash of entitlements here. The owner gets to determine what’s what. You are not the owner.

    Whether you feel that’s right or not is not important – you are not the owner, you don’t get a say. And given how you enjoy disregarding the rights of others (such as the owners of the software provided on physical media) you really have very little ground to argue with here.

    It is because of people with this conveniently selective, self-serving attitude regarding rights that those with rights will enforce and police them with more vigour.

    Whatever why you spin it, however you sugar-coat the fact that you ignore rights of others, unless you’re the legitimate owner and you actually understand what “owner” means in this context, your argument is moot.

    I imagine you will blithely continue to ignore these principles because you feel that such details are meaningless to your interests and therefore they don’t count.

    JM

    #32 2 years ago
  33. OrbitMonkey

    ^ Funny you say selective. Y’see the companies who provide the digital entertainment are very *selective* in that they never say your only renting the product. Which is obviously what your doing.

    If they said upfront, hey your renting this from us, for as long as we let you… Well that don’t sound so good.

    #33 2 years ago
  34. Joe Musashi

    They ARE very selective. They also go into an inordinate amount of detail as to precisely what rights the owner grants the user and what it doesn’t.

    Not reading those details, favouring your own skewed sense of ownership and also walking all over the rights of others, however, doesn’t make you a very convincing victim and doesn’t make your view a valid one.

    JM

    #34 2 years ago
  35. ManuOtaku

    #32 Thats precisely the main reason we need to define the owner and to which extension they do own or the user owns something, There is a clash of entitlenment here , because it has the name and data of the customer or end user on their account, hence the my account tag on it, that he/she does access to have a service which they do provide, to have their personal stuff on their servers in order for them to sell them something, therefore in reality it shares or have both “entitlements”, therefore within more reason we need a legal system that can be equal for both parts, becuase in reality there is a big ambiguity in digital distribution regarding ownership, you say customers dont own, the providers do, but in reality, like all transactions that are/were done by two parts, both have rights and do own something during the transaction at some point, therefore we need to stablish what the customers do own?, what the providers own?, and how we can make the legal system equal for all the parts involve?.

    “Not reading those details, favouring your own skewed sense of ownership and also walking all over the rights of others, however, doesn’t make you a very convincing victim and doesn’t make your view a valid one”

    That applies to you too sir, you are putting them as the victims, which they are not, they hold all the strings in those transactions, they estalbish all the guidelines, as they see fit, without anyone to control them, and maybe my point of view is not valid, iam not saying iam right or i own the truth on the matter, but something tells me that wanting something to be EQUAL, that give benefits to all the parts involve, unlike your notion, that only want to benefit just a selected few, has the most common sense about it.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. Joe Musashi

    The definition of “owner” is very thoroughly defined already. Normally in exhaustive legal detail in the terms you never read.

    You are not the owner of your phone number. You are not the owner of your XBL or PSN account. You are not the owner of your satellite channels. None of this belongs to you. You may FEEL like you own it but you do not.

    The concept of ownership with regards to products and services is very well established. There is no need for a new definition, just a need for people to grasp the existing one.

    JM

    #36 2 years ago
  37. ManuOtaku

    #36 why the MY/YOUR account tag on it then?.

    “You are not the owner of your phone number. You are not the owner of your XBL or PSN account. You are not the owner of your satellite channels. None of this belongs to you. You may FEEL like you own it but you do not”

    Iam talking about digital media, here, which doesnt have a proper law like other medias have, the rest is irrelevant to the conversation, if other medias posses laws that guideline the transaction, why not digital media?, something that controls TOS and EULAS done by the provider, thats just one part ruling the guidelines, thats is neither good or healthy, thats why laws does exist, to protect all the parts involve, but we need to define first what we do own in digital, and what we dont own, the concept you put is for physical transactions, not digital ones, hence the problems we have, for the lack of laws that do apply to such a new thing.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. OrbitMonkey

    @36 lol, nobody believes they own their cable subscription and I’m not playing the victim. The point is it would be very nice to actually own what we buy digitally, not find out within a 12 paragraph user agreement that we own precisely shit.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. Joe Musashi

    @38 But you do own what you buy digitally. You buy access to software (under specific terms, natch). That is what your money buys. Conceptually it’s no different to when you walk into a bricks and mortar retailer and make a purchase.

    @37 There is no difference. The concept of ownership amongst all those things is the same. It’s just that some people simply do not (or will not) accept it.

    JM

    #39 2 years ago
  40. ManuOtaku

    #39 The concept is old, it was for very tangible things, physical things, when digital didnt even exist, or neither was a notion in the mind of who created the digital space, we dont have laws that rule digital media, and neither that defines the boundaries of the provider and the user, the ones you mentioned, TOS and EULAS are done by the provider, but that needs a guideline, which is what laws do, and thats why we need that for digital distribution, i order to rule in equal terms both sides of the coin.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. OrbitMonkey

    @39, I speet on your “concept”!! :-P

    #41 2 years ago
  42. Joe Musashi

    @40 Yes, the concept is old. Digital media is pretty old too. Streetfighter, Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy are quarter of a century old and digital media is older than all of them.

    The concept, however works. You want it changed because it doesn’t favour you as much as you’d like it to.

    And here’s the kicker – it’s only going to get ‘worse’ for people so high on their cocktail of victimisation and entitlement that clouds their understanding of how things work in the real world. It’s not going to be ‘worse’ because the rights are going to change, but because the means of enforcing those rights are going to be increasingly effective.

    Note that digital media can be delivered physically or digitally. The rights and ownership do not change regardless of the method of delivery – they remain the same. However, it FEELS very different to some people because they mistakenly believed that physical media equalled ownership of the software. And because the method of delivery has no impact on the actual rights and ownership there is no need for any new legal system.

    The telling truth is from anyone who feels that digital delivery somehow ‘takes away’ a right of ownership they felt they had with physical media. There was never any right of ownership in the first place. Nothing has been taken away. The only thing that has been changed is perception.

    JM

    #42 2 years ago
  43. Dragon246

    @40,
    There was a recent case where a company was allowed to resell digital licenses of oracle products. A test case will most probably happen soon in this department.
    Digital is awesome, although downloading bigger games is still a pain in the ass.

    #43 2 years ago
  44. ManuOtaku

    #42 But not like the original concept, which is old as human kind from the old Greece for example, compare to all things that we own or had owned, digital is in its infancy.

    I dont want the concept to change, i want it to be equal in terms of the law that is needed for this type of transaction, and to all part involved end user and provider, not just one sided like it is now, i dont mind if this affects the provider, but we need equality here, remember theres two sides here, not just one, which defies the notion of enforcing on the consumers part, the enforcing is done right now by the provider, when he changes at their will, and how they see fit, the TOS and EULAS when they want, without any external control or guidence, sorry if i dont agree with you, is just that i like fairness to all parts involve, not just a selected few, remember thats why a bundle of rights exist, just to be equal to all parts involve, even if they both owns the same thing.

    #44 2 years ago
  45. ManuOtaku

    #43 yes thats an step in the right direction, but that is just only a precedent for future cases, but is something that do not rule the whole transaction in equal terms, we need a complete law for digital media, but i grant is the right step, in the right direction.

    #45 2 years ago
  46. Joe Musashi

    Old as human kind? I’m sure in the stone age people went around killing each other without punishment. Yes. Let’s bring back ‘old as human kind’ standards!

    No. Let’s not.

    “I dont want the concept to change, i want it to be equal..”

    Then you’re asking for it to be changed. I see this so much. It’s the classic “I’m not a racist, but..” mentality.

    There isn’t equality in how its applied for good reason. Because some people are owners and some are not. When the factors are not equal you cannot petition for equality.

    This isn’t a human rights argument.

    And I knew you’d pounce on @43′s comment. You don’t ask for detail, you don’t ask for proof. No, just the merest whiff of here-say – it suits your viewpoint so you’re all for it. You don’t need any substantiation or context. Nope, 100%, it sounds good to you so it ought to be applied.

    It doesn’t even enter your mind that digital reselling is ENTIRELY different from what is being discussed here. Oh, sorry, were you talking about enterprise software all along?? I very much doubt that someone who can’t / won’t grasp the concept of ownership would be familiar with the ins and outs of the sort of contracts involved in digital reselling of enterprise software.

    It’s so abundantly clear you don’t actually care for any of the facts of reality in this. You are only interested in what benefits you and how much you can gain. Screw any other involved party. Their rights don’t matter to you (you’ve already demonstrated this in the posts above).

    It’s just greed, and if you don’t get what you want, you act the victim.

    JM

    #46 2 years ago
  47. ManuOtaku

    #46 “Old as human kind? I’m sure in the stone age people went around killing each other without punishment. Yes. Let’s bring back ‘old as human kind’ standards!”

    We are talking about ownership, not killings here, please dont bring themes that doesnt belong here, dont change the topic here, old Greece is part of the human kind, and the firsts notions came almost from that period in time, so it fits.

    “I dont want the concept to change, i want it to be equal..”

    Then you’re asking for it to be changed. I see this so much. It’s the classic “I’m not a racist, but..” mentality.”

    Like i said i dont want it to change as a whole for all transactions, just for the digital media, for the other things, it can be the same, and for me is not a change more of an evolution, it will be more fitting, but if that means a change to you, so yes.

    And there is the bundle of rights for some reason to have multiple owners, the things is just that one part doesnt want to give the other rights on the ownership like this case, changing at will the TOS and EULAS withotu any control at all, thats just enforcing the entitlement all the way, and is not from the end users.

    “And I knew you’d pounce on @43′s comment. You don’t ask for detail, you don’t ask for proof. No, just the merest whiff of here-say – it suits your viewpoint so you’re all for it. You don’t need any substantiation or context. Nope, 100%, it sounds good to you so it ought to be applied

    t’s so abundantly clear you don’t actually care for any of the facts of reality in this. You are only interested in what benefits you and how much you can gain. Screw any other involved party. Their rights don’t matter to you (you’ve already demonstrated this in the posts above).

    It’s just greed, and if you don’t get what you want, you act the victim”

    Because unlike you i consider peoples opinions, not discard it like they are nothing, if they dont fit my view point, in that reagard i said it was an setp in the right direction, but a law was needed, and in all the previous posts, i said equal law, yes iam so selfish and greedy in my benefits, that i use the world equal, iam not the victim here, we the end users consumers are the victim, which includes you too, so unlike you iam fighting for you, even if we dont agree, unlike you that just ones that one part is the one with the benefits.

    #47 2 years ago
  48. Joe Musashi

    You don’t want a change but you do want a change.

    You want rights disregarded but legal systems should come in to protect rights.

    You want to reference principles ‘as old as human kind’ but you don’t want someone to reference principles ‘as old as human kind’.

    You pounce on any detail that you think supports your view, without any validation or substantiation or context or detail.

    You contradict yourself at every turn and you still won’t accept the most fundamental point upon which the entire argument is based on.

    “Good grief..”

    CB

    #48 2 years ago
  49. ManuOtaku

    #48 Now you go with semantics, trying to deconstruct all i have said, you are running out of steem dont you, who said that resorting to semantics was the last resort on an argument?, yeah it was you.

    #49 2 years ago
  50. Joe Musashi

    Semantics? I have stuck to the SAME detail throughout. You have spun and dallied and tiptoed and clutched at straws. You have contradicted yourself. You have refused at EVERY point to acknowledge any detail that doesn’t serve your personal interest.

    I summarise a handful of your glaring errors in basic discourse and you think you’re some victor – because, as usual, you blithely ignore the points about failed discourse and merrily (and inappropriately) bring up “semantics”. I really don’t think you understand what a semantics based argument would be – we’re still struggling with basic words and concepts like “owner”.

    “Because unlike you i consider peoples opinions”

    That is the absolute last thing you do. You ignore EVERYTHING of any opinion that doesn’t match your own view. ANY contrast to your view and you just meander down some arbitrary tangent and then accuse someone else of going off topic. ANY detail, however insubstantial, that veers close to your viewpoint and you’re on it like white on rice.

    Sadly, for you, it doesn’t matter whether you think you’re right or not.

    You’re not the owner, so you don’t get a say. No amount of twisting and turning on internet messageboards by you will change that.

    JM

    #50 2 years ago
  51. ManuOtaku

    #50
    And what points those are let me see:

    1.-An old concept, that was created when digital didnt exits
    2.-TOS and EULAS done by one of the parts without rulings or controls, or without taking in cosideration the other involve part.

    Yeah i got it, the end consumers is not the victim is the abuser here, yeah we dont need equal treatment, trhow empathy out of the gate.

    #51 2 years ago
  52. Joe Musashi

    “Yeah i got it”

    No, you don’t. Not even close.

    And you don’t get to trample over the rights of others and still play the victim card.

    JM

    #52 2 years ago
  53. ManuOtaku

    53 Joe Your opinion , as much as i respected is not a fact, your opinions are based on points that are very subject:

    1.-An old concept of ownership, that was created when digital didnt exited
    2.-TOS and EULAS done by one of the parts without rulings or controls, or without taking in cosideration the other part involved, the users and their rights.
    3.-Entitlenment on the user side aka vitimization, without realizing there is entitlement on the provide side of things.

    My main issue is the need for a law that is equal ruling this type of transaction due the fact that ownership concept doestn apply to digital, because it was established when things were tangible, phisical, and therefore it has anything to do with entlitement or end users being victims; You keep mentioning issues that hasnt anything to do with the topic and doing personal diconstruction of my points of views, which is fine because thats who you are and how you operate, but that not means that youre opinions are facts, and neither does mine by the way,becuase they are that, points of view.

    Desiring and wanting or hoping an equal legal system for all parts involve, is not bad, and is not asking for anything big actually, is just wanting fair treatment, is that is wrong to you fine, i dont mind it, what i do mind is you use your points as fact, that i dont agree ,and that is why argue with you or with anyone that posts here, pretending to give facts, disguised as opinion, thats i cannot let it pass it, so if you dont get my point fair, just do not pretend i have to get yours especially when they are as opinionated as mine.

    #53 2 years ago
  54. Joe Musashi

    I’d prefer you didn’t make comments about ‘respecting my opinion’ when you clearly don’t and you make a point of ignoring and dismissing it. Its intended to come across as sincerity but its actually dishonesty.

    Furthermore, you say I am passing off my opinion as fact. I agree, I am. However, I conveniently have reality on my side to back up my opinion. That my opinion, fact and reality all converge is no accident or coincidence. I’m also of the opinion that water is wet. I’m going to pass off that opinion as fact too. Feel free to disagree with that one too, if you like, it won’t make any difference.

    You can look at my opinion/fact/reality by seeing the world as it is right now. My ‘opinion’ of the concept of rights and ownership, alarmingly enough, aligns with how things are currently working in the real world.

    Now to the same broken points you keep repeating:

    1) An old concept of ownership, that was created when digital didnt exited

    No. It was created alongside digital media. YOUR concept of ownership is the archaic one, where you believe holding something in your hands means you are the owner. This is a common misconception regarding software. That you hold a disc in your hands does not mean you own the data that resides on that disc. The ownership of the software remains that of the publisher. You merely have access to that data, not ownership of it.

    Sadly, you have this entirely back to front. Your insistence that this ‘old concept’ shows that actually, you’re the one clinging to the old concept of ownership and not aware/understanding of how ownership of digital media exists or works. It is an established concept and came about at the same time of digital media.

    This is my opinion, substantiated by reality. Feel free to argue with it, in doing so you are also arguing with reality.

    2.-TOS and EULAS done by one of the parts without rulings or controls, or without taking in cosideration the other part involved, the users and their rights.

    Again, this is a moot point. Because if you don’t like the EULA or TOS then it’s simple: don’t accept it and don’t use the product or service.

    That’s how it works. This is how things are in the real world. You cannot have access to the product AND disagree with the terms by which access is granted. Both go hand in hand. If you want one, you have to accept the other. If you don’t accept the terms then you don’t get the product/service.

    If you accept the terms then it’s by your own choice and free will. So you are accountable for your own action. If you knowingly accepted terms you didn’t agree with simply to get the product or service you wanted then you have done that of your own free will and you have willingly given away your rights. Nobody but you are accountable for that. No rules need to be changed. You should not claim to agree to things that you don’t. Furthermore you have no argument after you have explicitly agreed to something. That time has passed. You declared agreement. Next time, don’t declare that you agree.

    If you disagree with this then stop giving away your own rights. Be accountable for the actions you take.

    This is my opinion, substantiated by reality. Feel free to argue with it, in doing so you are also arguing with reality.

    And finally, a magical third point that you didn’t quote before – conveniently showing how contradictory and inconsistent you are:

    3.-Entitlenment on the user side aka vitimization, without realizing there is entitlement on the provide side of things.

    “the provide side of things” – that would be the actual owner. Well, gee, the owner is entitled to things. See, that’s why the concept (and understanding) of ownership is so crucial. Its theirs. It belongs to them. They own it. They get to say how it works. They genuinely are entitled.

    “the user side” – that would be someone who isn’t the owner. They don’t own it. They don’t get a say. By spending money they acquire access not ownership. And that access is provided in very explicitly detailed terms.

    There is no argument to be made about equality because the two parties are not equal. This is not a crime. These are not human rights. This is consumerism. Arguments about equality are redundant. If you were equal to the owners of the software then you would no doubt have made the same hundreds or thousands of man hours into its production. You would have invested the same hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into its cost. You have not done these things. You are not equal.

    You are not a victim either. The enforcing of the rights entitled of the legitimate owner are not some form of unjust persecution. They are fully permitted and the owner is entitled to enforce them. More than likely you will already have agreed to this in advance. So there is no possible way you can claim any sort of victimisation.

    By contrast your disregard for the owner’s rights puts you in the wrong and makes a mockery of any argument for any rights that you make. You don’t care for rights. You only care for what you want. If someone else’s rights conflict with your desires then you have shown that you will ignore their rights. If you are so happy to ignore the rights of others then demanding the your (fictional) rights be not only acknowledged but supported by some legal system is some of the most blatant double-standards I’ve ever witnessed.

    You have no claim to equality. Only your misplaced sense of entitlement where you want more than you are due and so make emotive but tragically misplaced arguments about equals.

    By all means, argue for everyone’s right to clean water, food and education. I will be with you 100%. But you have no leg to stand on to claim equality in the context of digital media that you do not own.

    This is my opinion, substantiated by reality. Feel free to argue with it, in doing so you are also arguing with reality.

    JM

    #54 2 years ago
  55. ManuOtaku

    “I’d prefer you didn’t make comments about ‘respecting my opinion’ when you clearly don’t and you make a point of ignoring and dismissing it. Its intended to come across as sincerity but its actually dishonesty”

    I respect your opinion , but not agree with it, hence the impression of ignoring and dismissing it, but its not dishonesty, it is called not agreeing with your opinions, one is not in detriment with the other and viceversa

    “1) An old concept of ownership, that was created when digital didnt exited

    No. It was created alongside digital media. YOUR concept of ownership is the archaic one, where you believe holding something in your hands means you are the owner. This is a common misconception regarding software. That you hold a disc in your hands does not mean you own the data that resides on that disc. The ownership of the software remains that of the publisher. You merely have access to that data, not ownership of it.

    Sadly, you have this entirely back to front. Your insistence that this ‘old concept’ shows that actually, you’re the one clinging to the old concept of ownership and not aware/understanding of how ownership of digital media exists or works. It is an established concept and came about at the same time of digital media.

    This is my opinion, substantiated by reality. Feel free to argue with it, in doing so you are also arguing with reality”

    Ownership since the very beginning in old greece, didnt was started with digital media, and during the formation and pondering of said concept, therefore is quite imposible that was the case, i mean the digital was part of the concept from the very begining.

    Thats were i think we are arguing different things here, i am not saying we need to own the games in digital more than in physical, is that we need to have some rights on the account for that sevice, hence the my account tag on it, in order to the games under that account are also for the person that owns the account, it doesnt matter if the account is block or canceled or whatever it might happen, you have the games at your disposal in your PC, without any detriment of the account, that is something like a bundle of rights, were a thing in this case a digital copy can share the ownership by the provider and the end user, this will be more different that with the physical copy, were this is not the case or needed, therefore the need for an equal law is needed, in order to establish the equal ownership or something on those lines, because at the end of the day the provider is not the owner of the game, just the service.

    I dont agree with the legal aspect of digital media born with it, because we dont have a digital media law, just the opinions of licenses and the use of licenses, which are form part of the physical media, just put it with more control with digital, due the account ownership, thats the only difference, but there is not law that rules this.

    “2.-TOS and EULAS done by one of the parts without rulings or controls, or without taking in cosideration the other part involved, the users and their rights.

    Again, this is a moot point. Because if you don’t like the EULA or TOS then it’s simple: don’t accept it and don’t use the product or service.

    That’s how it works. This is how things are in the real world. You cannot have access to the product AND disagree with the terms by which access is granted. Both go hand in hand. If you want one, you have to accept the other. If you don’t accept the terms then you don’t get the product/service.

    If you accept the terms then it’s by your own choice and free will. So you are accountable for your own action. If you knowingly accepted terms you didn’t agree with simply to get the product or service you wanted then you have done that of your own free will and you have willingly given away your rights. Nobody but you are accountable for that. No rules need to be changed. You should not claim to agree to things that you don’t. Furthermore you have no argument after you have explicitly agreed to something. That time has passed. You declared agreement. Next time, don’t declare that you agree.

    If you disagree with this then stop giving away your own rights. Be accountable for the actions you take.

    This is my opinion, substantiated by reality. Feel free to argue with it, in doing so you are also arguing with reality.

    And finally, a magical third point that you didn’t quote before – conveniently showing how contradictory and inconsistent you are”

    Is true i can or cant accept the TOS of EULAS changes, but it is a force situation because everything is tie to the account, if i choose not, because they take some of my rights or something i dont agree with, i lose MY account, and then the access to the games i possesed under that account, therefore is not really a choose situation, more a forced one, again the problems, lie in the ownership of the account, games and the lack of laws that guides this transactions and the boundaries on all parts involve.

    “3.-Entitlenment on the user side aka vitimization, without realizing there is entitlement on the provide side of things.

    “the provide side of things” – that would be the actual owner. Well, gee, the owner is entitled to things. See, that’s why the concept (and understanding) of ownership is so crucial. Its theirs. It belongs to them. They own it. They get to say how it works. They genuinely are entitled.

    “the user side” – that would be someone who isn’t the owner. They don’t own it. They don’t get a say. By spending money they acquire access not ownership. And that access is provided in very explicitly detailed terms.

    There is no argument to be made about equality because the two parties are not equal. This is not a crime. These are not human rights. This is consumerism. Arguments about equality are redundant. If you were equal to the owners of the software then you would no doubt have made the same hundreds or thousands of man hours into its production. You would have invested the same hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into its cost. You have not done these things. You are not equal.

    You are not a victim either. The enforcing of the rights entitled of the legitimate owner are not some form of unjust persecution. They are fully permitted and the owner is entitled to enforce them. More than likely you will already have agreed to this in advance. So there is no possible way you can claim any sort of victimisation.

    By contrast your disregard for the owner’s rights puts you in the wrong and makes a mockery of any argument for any rights that you make. You don’t care for rights. You only care for what you want. If someone else’s rights conflict with your desires then you have shown that you will ignore their rights. If you are so happy to ignore the rights of others then demanding the your (fictional) rights be not only acknowledged but supported by some legal system is some of the most blatant double-standards I’ve ever witnessed.

    You have no claim to equality. Only your misplaced sense of entitlement where you want more than you are due and so make emotive but tragically misplaced arguments about equals.

    By all means, argue for everyone’s right to clean water, food and education. I will be with you 100%. But you have no leg to stand on to claim equality in the context of digital media that you do not own.

    This is my opinion, substantiated by reality. Feel free to argue with it, in doing so you are also arguing with reality”

    Like i said theres a lot of things involve in that entitlement, the account, which is the user account, the games that are under that account, and the ownership of the provider of the service, which owns the service but not the products, at least not 100%, therefore theres multiples owners on that transaction, like in a bundle of rights where one thing , here digital media, can have multiple owners, that is the situation described here, and for that it needs laws in equal terms for all parts involve, and by equal i mean that protects one part over the other, where one part cannot take decisions without an external part control or withotu guidence, therefore is equal treatment for everybody, maybe is not the right word, but i think that if one part cannot do wrongs to the other, because of abuse and control of power is equal.

    In this particular case the end user doenst feel entitled, it feels abused by one part that rules the transaction without any limits, althought the end user haves his/her account, under the MY account label,in reality is at the mercy of the provider of the service changing the TOS as they like it, that needs a control, and laws are pretty much the only thing that controls this type of transactions were two parts are involve.

    And sorry for the feeling of argue, is that the reality in where you live is not mine, is a very multiple reality like universe, and for that very subjective and not a fact.

    #55 2 years ago
  56. Joe Musashi

    “the reality in where you live is not mine”

    Ain’t that the truth. Sadly, for you, my reality is the one this world appears to be running on.

    JM

    #56 2 years ago
  57. ManuOtaku

    #57 I can say the same, that my reality is the one the world appear to be running, hence the MY account tag on it, that establishs a ownership right there.

    #57 2 years ago
  58. Joe Musashi

    Except that the account isn’t owned by you – it’s a database record on a database owned by somebody else. You merely have (write) access to it. Still demonstrating that you are failing to grasp the fundamentals concerning digital ownership. Still demonstrating that you are failing to grasp the reality of this world. A reality that billions understand and acknowledge.

    JM

    #58 2 years ago
  59. ManuOtaku

    #59 but it has the end user personal data, which holds the end user personal purchases, done with the end user personal money, he owns his/her access to the service, he do owns something in the end the access to their personal things in the server, hence the MY account, that is a very debated point of view IMHO, legally speaking, at least is a term that has strong connotations of ambiguity, thats is why we need laws for this, if you dont want to see it, because you dont want, thats fine, but is not a fact, or how the things should operate, we need to break false paradigms, you disregard all the points that doesnt suit your point of view.
    p.s thats why we are seeing changings with rulings that favor the end user all over the world with digital media, so courts in a sense, feel responsible to give the end user their well deserved rights, but they are against your reality, right i forgot.

    #59 2 years ago
  60. ManuOtaku

    Joe Mushashi Ok lets see how my point of view, did had some valid points after all, not bad for someone that didnt grasp the notions; source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

    FIRST
    “In the proprietary software industry, an end-user license agreement or software license agreement is the contract between the licensor and purchaser, establishing the purchaser’s right to use the software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup)”

    The EULAS and/or TOS have the first sale doctrine on them, which they have freedom of use, archive, re-sale and back up), this first sale doctrine is for physical media, but is also applied to digital media, look for the word freedom of use and re-sale, they are key here becuase they define the physical media transactions, something we can do with physical games, and it is debated if this is also applied to digital or software too, but that i will touch it later on.

    then it saids the following:

    “The first-sale doctrine plays an important role in copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, gifting, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the “right of first sale,” “first sale rule,” or “exhaustion rule.”

    So very physical indeed, i mean for physical media, but is also part of digital media EULAS and TOS, so is in line with my comment #40

    SECOND

    “Application of first sale doctrine to digital copies of copyrighted works poses difficult policy questions. In today’s world, copies of copyrighted works, music, movies, and software, are increasingly bought by downloading through the Internet. For example, can a lawful purchaser of a song in MP3 format from the iTunes store be allowed, consistent with the first sale doctrine, to resell or distribute that copy to others? *** DIGITAL COPIES OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS DO NOT COMFORTABLY FIT WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINESHIP..***. Unlike transactions where a tangible copy changes hands, a digital transfer results in a reproduction of the work through the electronic transmission of a new copy of the work to its recipient. In other words, transferor retains the source copy unless deleted from the hard disk manually or through some special technology. By sending a copy to the transferee, the transferor infringes both the reproduction and distribution rights, but the first sale doctrine provides no defense to the infringement of the reproduction right. For example, this exact issue is playing out in the ongoing litigation against ReDigi, an online marketplace for pre-owned digital music”

    So here basically says that this doctrine, first sale rule, which is part of the copyright and trademark, and for that ownership, and that also forms part of EULAS and TOS do not work for digital media, because is for physical medias, remember my comment number 40 heres a part of it
    “the concept is old, it was for very tangible things, physical things, when digital didnt even exist, or neither was a notion in the mind of who created the digital space, we dont have laws that rule digital media,” so this also mentions that at the least is an strong possibility that this things are based on tangible things rather than digital, because its based on old concepts.

    An then it says the following:

    “The question is whether the first sale doctrine should be retooled to reflect the realities of the digital age. Physical copies degrade over time, whereas digital information does not. Works in digital format can be reproduced without any flaws and can be disseminated worldwide without much difficulty. Thus, applying the first sale doctrine to digital copies affect the market for the original to a greater degree than transfers of physical copies. The Copyright Office took the position that the doctrine should not apply to digital copies by stating that “[t]he tangible nature of a copy is a defining element of the first sale doctrine and critical to its rationale.”[1]”

    Again my comment #40, stated above on this comment, where i said it was a concept based on tangible things, and for that the need for a equal legal system or law that is based on this new reality, is not that wrong, or neither is based only on my reality, which is not the world reality, right.

    THIRD

    Here we touch the entitlement clash on my comment 30, that went this way

    “Of course is entitlement, as much as the provider of the service claims their entitlement over the user with the account, not just us the users claim entitlement here , it goes both ways in reality, therefore is the clash of two entitlements here, now the question is who needs the legal system the most?”

    “Some software and digital content publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software or content is licensed, not sold, and thus the first sale doctrine does not apply to their works. These publishers have had some success in contracting around first sale doctrine through various clickwrap, shrink wrap, and other license agreements. For example, if you buy MP3 songs from Amazon.com, the MP3 files are merely licensed to you and hence you may not be able to resell those MP3 files. However, MP3 songs bought through iTunes store may be characterized as “sales” because of Apple’s language in its EULA and hence they maybe resell-able, if other requirements of first sale doctrine are met”

    So here basically saids that the ones that claim, that the goods are not sold only licensed, are the providers of the service, not a law, not the concept of ownership, is them, which is a pretty entitle opinion, and this also goes with the notion, that we need to adapt the legal system to this reality, with a law that is equal to all parts involves, because right now theres a lot of ambiguity, and every one is entitle, but this is not a fact, is an opinion from both sides.

    FOUR

    And even courts have problems grasping this things, much alone my person, so again the needs for rules, laws that are equal for everybody are needed indeed.

    “Courts have struggled and taken dramatically different approaches to sort out when only a license was granted to the end user as compared to ownership. Most of these cases involved software-licensing agreements. In general, courts look beneath the surface of the agreements to conclude whether the agreements create licensing relationship or if they amount to, in substance, sales subject to first sale doctrine under §109(a). Thus, specifying that the agreement grants only a “license” is necessary to create the licensing relationship, but not sufficient. Other terms of the agreement should be consistent with such a licensing relation”

    So it basecally says they are arguing if digital media should be based on physical media doctrines, like the first sale doctrine, and should be rule by that, or if we need to adapt it to current times, because the concept was done when digital didnt even exist, i touch that on comment 40, quoted above and other comments as well.

    “However, on July 3, 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.[2][3] The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first sale doctrine is in force.[4][5] The ruling applies to the European Union, but could find indirectly its way to North America; moreover the situation could entice publishers to offer platforms for a secondary market.[3]”

    Heres also a ruling from a court that gives a very physical treatment to digital, for the first sale doctrine, based on tangible things, that is what i mentioned on allmost all my previous comments on this thread.

    Therefore to sum things up, iam not saying i know everything, and i trully dont know much about the theme, but what i did know is the fair treatment for all parts involve, and the need for a law that rules digital media, in equal terms, and in that i wasnt that far off, at least iam not the only one that thinks that way, and theres clear indication that we need that, and maybe all of this i put here is not the whole picture only a glimpse and for that i could be wrong, but one thing is sure there is a lot of holes and ambiguity concern with this topic, that are needed to be filled by a healthy law, that treats with equallity both sides end user and provider, and your opinion at the end of the day, is just an opinion just like mine, neither of them as a fact or the whole truth, or how this world opperates.

    #60 2 years ago
  61. Joe Musashi

    Still arguing with reality.

    ..but what i did know is the fair treatment for all parts involve

    No. You absolutely and unequivocally do not (that you can even make that claim with a straight fact demonstrates a tenuous grip on reality). You don’t not understand the concept of ownership. You don’t want to understand it. You dismiss it because it doesnt suit you to accept it. That is not fair on the legitimate owners.

    You trample over the genuine rights of the owners and you admit to doing so knowingly on the basis that you don’t expect the rights of others to be enforced.

    None of this changes the facts or the reality.

    JM

    #61 2 years ago
  62. ManuOtaku

    #62 So just to know it, you just disregard all that information, right?
    p.s the way i see it all that you put torwards me, applies to you too, because that depends on the eye of the beholder, do you even realize that?

    #62 2 years ago
  63. Joe Musashi

    I accept reality. I don’t pick and choose the pieces of reality that suit my agenda and dismiss the bits that don’t.

    I don’t argue about how standards need to be changed and a new legal system must be put in place AND THEN quote existing standards. That’d be dumb. It’d prove that I either don’t know what I’m talking about now, or didn’t know what I’m talking about then. Or that I flip and flop and can’t present a consistent, coherent argument.

    But maybe, in your reality, that sort of behaviour is a good thing. I don’t know. I don’t live there.

    JM

    #63 2 years ago
  64. ManuOtaku

    #64 “I accept reality. I don’t pick and choose the pieces of reality that suit my agenda and dismiss the bits that don’t”

    Man is only information, reality is formed by a lot of informations, things, opinions, ideas,etc, reality is like a multiverse or multiple universe, because all things have multiple interpretations, like the glass of water, is half full, half empty, two opposite opinions and both hold some true,just one view doesnt make a reality, the sad thing is you disregard all the information, like it is nothing, and then you talk iam the one doing it, the good thing is i got the good feeling knowing that my point of view holds some water, even if it is a little bit, i mean in my thinking of the need for proper laws that rule digital transactions, and thanks to this conversation with you, and the need to look for further information, i realize this, and for that i really appreciate it, i mean having this discussion, thanks anyway, and good day man.

    #64 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.