Amazon Luna just proved the “Buy” button may not mean ownership. Games people paid full price for are disappearing, cloud saves are being deleted, and Amazon...
On June 10th any game purchases people made through Amazon’s Luna service will be removed, with no refunds. On June 3rd they’re ending the “bring your own library” feature where you could link to certain outside accounts (GOG, etc.) and get those to stream on Luna.
There’s more about Buy button shenanigans and digital ownership, but that’s the part the headline refers to.
To grab your save data. The purchased games themselves disappear on June 10th. There will still be a selection of games to stream (Game Pass/Xcloud style) after that date, but you have to wonder how long that’ll last.
Yup, and in some cases where applicable they also gave you the keys to specific publisher libraries, like I got Assassin’s Creed Origins and Odyssey added to my Uplay account with my saves intact right before Stadia shut down.
You can hate Google for lots of things, but when it comes to Stadia they handled it right.
The string of bits doesn’t have to be part of an expensive blockchain though, it can just as easily be a generated uuid. In either case, the technology relies on multiple parties honouring your claim.
Hell it could be tied to an email address and nothing else.
Yes it needs support, as almost all blockchains do, they are public consensus models. All it needs is for a token to connect to a specific piece of media. You prove ownership of that token and the streaming service honors your ownership. You move steaming services? They still honor your ownership. Likely also needs legislative support to enforce honoring the token and enforce studios to provide same access to all distributors.
I think there are 2 types of drm, one is invasive and the other is permissive. Everything needs some sort of Auth and permission drm, and usually it sits in a company dB and if they go under or remove it, you lose Auth. I think that type of system can be better under a blockchain model, moving universal ownership to a decentralized ledger. Services still must recognize the ledger as valid, but then no single provider is the arbiter of your ownership and Auth.
do you store entire game binaries and assets in your fucking blockchain? fucking 150gb games in the fucking blockchain? how fucking big is this thing? who hosts it?
No, it seems you and many others fundamentally misunderstand that a blockchain is a distributed ledger as primary functionality, not a data store as such. It stores proof of ownership, that you purchased it from an authorized registered distributor, that’s it. Just to be thorough, all ledgers require further external consensus for functionality.
In this case, a service (who stores and sends the big file) must recognize your token as ownership. What this solves is that when movie x is bought from Amazon and moves to Streamio and then moves to Paramount, you can load your token into Paramount and Paramount can see your token was created by warner brothers, so they can legally serve you Blazing Saddles without contacting Amazon or Streamio, which since has gone out of business.
Today, when they move licenses or whatever else happens, you lose whatever you bought. With a distributed ledger you automatically have proof of purchase to any entity that is able and willing (or legally forced) to use that ledger for validation, and no single entity can just erase your ownership like they can and do today.
It allows you to easily move to another host which isn’t otherwise possible. Your criticisms are endemic to all media, so are moot. You personally don’t have to stream, you can buy a physical copy and rip it and store it locally, be my guest.
Just FYI, it’s a fun mental exercise to dream up I suppose. I don’t have all the answers and if it were easy it’d already exist.
You have to subscribe to the host. Your token gives them legal authority to get it and stream to you. In the original example, you can buy from anyone, and the token is auth’d by warner brothers and ultimately they got paid for it. In theory, the original distributor auths the token and gets money for their product directly from consumers instead of via corporate license or profit share. The difference is, any host would have legal authority to stream it and in theory they could get it from any other host in the network at that point, not just the original distributor, because you have a valid ownership token. This means they cannot cancel on you or force you to move hosts, like they can today. And again, it requires both a tech and legal framework to work, but it is fundamentally different than anything that exists today. You’d be legally free to cache a copy if you want, since you own it, or just cache it from your subscribed streaming host. Nobody should care how you get it, just that you are allowed to have it and you paid for it and you pay for streaming service if you want to stream. The service itself should be vastly cheaper, because they don’t have a large media cost, just network and storage costs. The host network would likely have to run on some version of torrent with chain Auth integration. The original distributor can’t be the final arbiter of ownership nor the only host or expected to host forever, as they could dissolve and media could end up in limbo. Again, every detail isn’t needed, we’re not solving this over night, but a distributed ledger of ownership is step 1 of how you buy something and have everyone have even a chance of knowing you own it without both a central authority and the ability for them to unilaterally take it away. This could apply to your copy of Robocop and your stock in Amazon.
Doesn’t apply to streaming media. You’re free to cache your media if you can store it, since you own it, but that’s not true of all people and all media. How does steam verify you own something from gog if gog shuts down? They don’t unless a distributed ledger exists, then they could.
Without the context or summary finding info is going to be a crap shoot and potentially a waste of time. Meanwhile the person posting the vid, who has the context, could simply provide some of that in non-video form. Even just a one line summary.
Any tldr? I hate watching a video of something that, probably, can be summarized in a single fucking paragraph.
I’m also not always able to watch videos compared to just reading an article
On June 10th any game purchases people made through Amazon’s Luna service will be removed, with no refunds. On June 3rd they’re ending the “bring your own library” feature where you could link to certain outside accounts (GOG, etc.) and get those to stream on Luna.
There’s more about Buy button shenanigans and digital ownership, but that’s the part the headline refers to.
So people have “90 days” to what? Play the games? Before they disappear?
To grab your save data. The purchased games themselves disappear on June 10th. There will still be a selection of games to stream (Game Pass/Xcloud style) after that date, but you have to wonder how long that’ll last.
Say what you will about Stadia, but at least Google gave everyone full refunds when that shut down.
Yup, and in some cases where applicable they also gave you the keys to specific publisher libraries, like I got Assassin’s Creed Origins and Odyssey added to my Uplay account with my saves intact right before Stadia shut down.
You can hate Google for lots of things, but when it comes to Stadia they handled it right.
This is where blockchains can be useful. Buy once, valid everywhere always with a little support.
The string of bits doesn’t have to be part of an expensive blockchain though, it can just as easily be a generated uuid. In either case, the technology relies on multiple parties honouring your claim.
Hell it could be tied to an email address and nothing else.
Yes it needs support, as almost all blockchains do, they are public consensus models. All it needs is for a token to connect to a specific piece of media. You prove ownership of that token and the streaming service honors your ownership. You move steaming services? They still honor your ownership. Likely also needs legislative support to enforce honoring the token and enforce studios to provide same access to all distributors.
I’m torn between not wanting universal DRM and wanting to break up platform specific DRM.
I think there are 2 types of drm, one is invasive and the other is permissive. Everything needs some sort of Auth and permission drm, and usually it sits in a company dB and if they go under or remove it, you lose Auth. I think that type of system can be better under a blockchain model, moving universal ownership to a decentralized ledger. Services still must recognize the ledger as valid, but then no single provider is the arbiter of your ownership and Auth.
do you store entire game binaries and assets in your fucking blockchain? fucking 150gb games in the fucking blockchain? how fucking big is this thing? who hosts it?
No, it seems you and many others fundamentally misunderstand that a blockchain is a distributed ledger as primary functionality, not a data store as such. It stores proof of ownership, that you purchased it from an authorized registered distributor, that’s it. Just to be thorough, all ledgers require further external consensus for functionality.
In this case, a service (who stores and sends the big file) must recognize your token as ownership. What this solves is that when movie x is bought from Amazon and moves to Streamio and then moves to Paramount, you can load your token into Paramount and Paramount can see your token was created by warner brothers, so they can legally serve you Blazing Saddles without contacting Amazon or Streamio, which since has gone out of business.
Today, when they move licenses or whatever else happens, you lose whatever you bought. With a distributed ledger you automatically have proof of purchase to any entity that is able and willing (or legally forced) to use that ledger for validation, and no single entity can just erase your ownership like they can and do today.
Cool, a proof of ownership database.
Doesn’t do a damn thing when the owned data is removed or when the host decides they don’t care about that particular period of ownership database.
It allows you to easily move to another host which isn’t otherwise possible. Your criticisms are endemic to all media, so are moot. You personally don’t have to stream, you can buy a physical copy and rip it and store it locally, be my guest.
why would there be another host if they dob’t receive compensation for serving me the content I already paid someone else for?
Just FYI, it’s a fun mental exercise to dream up I suppose. I don’t have all the answers and if it were easy it’d already exist.
You have to subscribe to the host. Your token gives them legal authority to get it and stream to you. In the original example, you can buy from anyone, and the token is auth’d by warner brothers and ultimately they got paid for it. In theory, the original distributor auths the token and gets money for their product directly from consumers instead of via corporate license or profit share. The difference is, any host would have legal authority to stream it and in theory they could get it from any other host in the network at that point, not just the original distributor, because you have a valid ownership token. This means they cannot cancel on you or force you to move hosts, like they can today. And again, it requires both a tech and legal framework to work, but it is fundamentally different than anything that exists today. You’d be legally free to cache a copy if you want, since you own it, or just cache it from your subscribed streaming host. Nobody should care how you get it, just that you are allowed to have it and you paid for it and you pay for streaming service if you want to stream. The service itself should be vastly cheaper, because they don’t have a large media cost, just network and storage costs. The host network would likely have to run on some version of torrent with chain Auth integration. The original distributor can’t be the final arbiter of ownership nor the only host or expected to host forever, as they could dissolve and media could end up in limbo. Again, every detail isn’t needed, we’re not solving this over night, but a distributed ledger of ownership is step 1 of how you buy something and have everyone have even a chance of knowing you own it without both a central authority and the ability for them to unilaterally take it away. This could apply to your copy of Robocop and your stock in Amazon.
You have a string of bits. If the service shuts down that wont help.
Really appreciate GOG’s model instead, just give me a locally installed executable that doesn’t depend on a storefront.
Doesn’t apply to streaming media. You’re free to cache your media if you can store it, since you own it, but that’s not true of all people and all media. How does steam verify you own something from gog if gog shuts down? They don’t unless a distributed ledger exists, then they could.
not to mention a video with such an offensive thumbnail
I agree. YouTube thumbnail is absolute clickbait cancer, now with AI to make it more abhorrent
If you can’t be bothered to watch or find an article yourself, I can’t be bothered to summarise 🤷♂️
Nobody asked you to not summarize, but here you are.
Yeah let’s just give more views to YouTube. Shut the fuck up with your shit attitude bud.
“I’ll go to a video community, open a community post, complain that a video was shared and demand others summarise the video for me”.
And I have the “shit” attitude. Sure bud
I did not demand anything :)
This was in all so…
This comment alone should end the thread lol insane that it’s getting downvoted
What an unnecessarily rude and aggressive comment. Yikes.
I think it was the right amount of rudeness and aggressiveness.
What a bootlicky and corporate apologist comment. Yikes.
He has a point. I’ma preemptively block you, you sound like a complete ass hole I have zero interest in ever dealing with.
Without the context or summary finding info is going to be a crap shoot and potentially a waste of time. Meanwhile the person posting the vid, who has the context, could simply provide some of that in non-video form. Even just a one line summary.
We’re on !videos@lemmy.world , not world news or something. If you wanted articles, don’t go to a video community. Simple as.
Well shit let’s turn off the comments here too since text based discussions aren’t allowed in /c/videos
Maybe but context is useful regardless. Improved posting standards just makes for a better community.
Also this post popped up in all feed so it’s not like you’re an isolated little pocket.