218
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
218 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
34877 readers
45 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is huge and not like what happened last month.
Last month they removed access to "Deadly Dentists | Season 1" and similar shows that are also broadcasted 24/7 everywhere on TV, so not too many people "purchased" them.
But for anime the chance that a big fan is losing access to a massive collection of titles paid thousands of dollars is much higher.
Sony didn't learn from the backlash that happened less than two months ago?????
They learned that the backlash was easily ignored, most likely.
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit on this.
Their TOS most likely forbids class action suits. It most likely requires individual or “small batch” arbitration that benefits Sony.
Only if you file suit and the court finds it enforceable. Sometimes they say you can sue anyway.
I’m not aware of that ever happening. It may have, but every case that I’m aware of has ended quickly with the court enforcing the TOS that users “voluntarily” deciphered and agreed to.
One clear example in the US is "warranty void if removed" stickers. It was found that "contract" violated consumer protection laws, so companies are required to prove the customer broke it in an attempt to repair it, instead of just proving the customer attempted to repair it.
Provide the case? I’m very interested to see this.
It's not a case, but action by the FTC. And here are settlements with three companies on similar grounds (conditioning warranties on the manner of repair).