Of course they could have negotiated that. They didn’t just forget. They choose to not pay whatever additional cost Studio Canal would have wanted for a perpetual license.
Knowing that, they turned around and deceived people into buying something by false representation. Sony are crooks and have been crooks for a long time.
Same for me. I have boycotted Sony since the rootkit fiasco.
I’m also still angry that, even though intentionally hacking a computer system is a criminal offence, not a single Sony employee was prosecuted or even arrested. Sony committed a crime on a massive scale that any individual would have been convicted of and spent years in jail for. They did it knowingly and for financial gain. They should be behind bars.
I think what the author is saying is akin to that old joke about a broken machine that nobody at the company can fix.
They bring in a high priced consultant who spends a few minutes looking at the machine, reaches in and pushes a switch and suddenly the machine starts working.
When the manager gets the invoice, he calls the consultant demanding an explanation for why it cost so much. After all, the consultant only spent a few minutes looking and then flipped one switch.
The consultant offered to send a more detailed invoice and the manager received one that said:
- Flipping a switch: $1
- Knowing which switch to flip: $999
In other words, the writing of the code is like flipping the switch. It’s the rest of “coding” that’s difficult.
By VPS, I mean a generic compute instance that can run whatever you want. Like a Linux instance. I'm not sure what you mean by "VPN providers offer VPS as a substitute" in that context.
Paying by card isn't enough to verify age. They'd have to specifically verify via passport or other ID.
I don't understand what "VPN providers move onto VPS to avoid" means? Can you clarify?
I can't see how they could apply it to VPS providers without meaning AWS, GCP, Digital Ocean, etc would all start having to do age verification checks. Can't imagine here would not be a massive push back against that.
The definition section of the amendment defines a "relevant VPN service":
>“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;
I think it would be a significant stretch to say that a provider that provisions a VPS instance is a "business providing a virtual private network".
Just because you could run a VPN, it's not the VPS provider that is offering a VPN service.
No, it’s more fundamental than fair use. Fair use is a defence to a copyright infringement. It’s an argument that, yes, I did violate the copyright of the creator, but my violation should be allowed.
The issue here is, what are creators allowed to own and control. It’s about the fundamental question of what copyright gives the creators control over.
Does creating a picture mean you own the right to its description? And you have the right to prevent anyone else from describing your picture?
Knowing that, they turned around and deceived people into buying something by false representation. Sony are crooks and have been crooks for a long time.