That won’t matter. Discus comments are tied to people’s real identities in most cases and that didn’t stop them from posting unhinged bullshit underneath every story.
That reporting feature lets a user "review a recording of the last three minutes of the latest three GameChat sessions" to highlight a particular section for review, suggesting that chat sessions are not being captured and stored in full. The terms also lay out that "these recordings are available only if the report is submitted within 24 hours," suggesting that recordings are deleted from local storage after a full day.
We should assume that our chats/calls are being recorded on services like this. But why exactly is this done? Seems like it leaves a lot of liability on their end and then added costs for the storage of all that data.
Are they required to or are they selling the data?
Answer (without even needing to read the article): they can’t legally brick your console, but we live in an oligarchy that refuses to enforce the law against the powerful.
What other industry is allowed to just do this? Its robbery. If I want to buy an Xbox and mod it to hell I should be able to. At most they should be able to disconnect me from their online infrastructure. Not brick my console.
The only place I’ve seen it is if you didn’t finish paying for it (like getting a fence replaced at your house and then not paying them will get it torn down)
While these kinds of “bricking” clauses haven’t been tested in court, lawyers who spoke to Ars felt they would probably hold up to judicial review.
This is laughable at best, would 100% never go to court. The cost of losing would destroy so many models… and defending in it in the light of real consequences is going to make them popular… Ask the RIAA how suing customers made them look.
Assuming this article is talking about the USA? This doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that would fly anywhere with half-decent consumer protection laws.
“Although users own the hardware, the software that’s needed to run it is subject to a license agreement,” attorney Jon Loiterman told Ars. “If you violate the license terms, Nintendo has the right to revoke your access to that software. It’s less common for software makers to revoke access to software in a way that disables hardware you bought from them, but the principle is the same.”
i guess that sort of makes sense, like if you’re hacking the thing to install your own software, Nintendo says “have fun outside but you can’t come back to our garden”.
But it also doesn’t because Nintendo has the power to remove functionality that I already paid them for. Even if I tinker with my device, why does that mean that I can never go back to the stock Switch experience that I paid for?
If SIE Inc determines that you have violated this Agreement’s terms, SIE Inc may itself or may procure the taking of any action to protect its interests such as disabling access to or use of some or all System Software, disabling use of this PS5 system online or offline, termination of your access to PlayStation Network, denial of any warranty, repair or other services provided for your PS5 system, implementation of automatic or mandatory updates or devices intended to discontinue unauthorized use, or reliance on any other remedial efforts as reasonably necessary to prevent the use of modified or unpermitted use of System Software.
Although I’ve never heard of any reports of that, and I’d love to see it tested in a courtroom. Deliberately bricking someone else’s hardware because YOU believe for some reason that they’re not using it properly is on a whole other level than just disabling online accounts. It’s vindictive.
arstechnica.com
Aktywne