Summary
Overview
Luke and Linus discuss Sony's stance on digital game ownership, the Steam leak containing terabytes of content from 2003-2013, Markiplier's GoPro investment controversy, and various tech industry news. They also cover YouTube's redefinition of views, discuss their personal experiences with smart home setups and carbonated beverages, and reflect on content creation challenges including audience expectations and product development at LTT Store.
Sony's Digital Game Ownership Lawsuit
Sony is defending itself against a class-action lawsuit regarding digital game ownership by arguing that customers should have known they were only purchasing licenses, not actual games. Their legal team made the bizarre argument that if one person truly owned a game, another person couldn't purchase the same title. The discussion highlights the broader implications for digital content ownership across all media, not just video games, and the potential consequences if Sony wins this case.
- Sony argues that disclosures around digital purchases are already clearly defined in TOS, and reasonable customers wouldn't be misled into believing they own games
- Sony's counsel made an absurd argument that if someone truly owned a game, another buyer couldn't purchase the same title eleven days later
- The case has huge implications beyond video games for all licensed digital content
- PlayStation uses 'buy now' and 'purchase' terminology despite only granting revocable licenses
" Sony is arguing that in order to buy a game you have to actually buy like the full IP. Like seems like it you have to you what you have to buy the studio "
" If Sony wins this, you effectively don't own anything that was licensed. And it's like it's formalized now. The fact that you already didn't, it matters. But formalizing this again now, more recently, matters more "
" They should have known therefore it is okay can backfire so hard. They should have known that ad blockers were freely available and almost everyone runs them. And therefore you cannot expect to ever run an ad on anything on the internet "
Markiplier's GoPro Investment Controversy
Markiplier became GoPro's largest individual shareholder with 8.5% ownership before a merger caused the stock to skyrocket 177% in five days. Controversy arose when it was discovered he had made a sponsored video about GoPro products without proper investment disclosure, only listing it as a sponsorship. The discussion examines the nuances of disclosure requirements and the differences between sponsored content, investment stakes, and the importance of transparency with audiences.
- Markiplier bought GoPro shares starting in July, reportedly because he liked their cameras and thought they were undervalued as a household name
- The stock jumped 177.6% in five days after the merger announcement with Starman Optical
- Initial disclosure only mentioned sponsorship, not ownership stake, though this was later corrected in the video description
- In an interview, Markiplier said he thought sponsorship disclosure was enough because YouTube had no investment option
" You can do that, but you'd be wrong most of the time. That is such a sad worldview. That is a sad worldview. How about we not assume the worst of people all the time? "
" If we're going to go after people for insider trading, maybe the government and then... And then, I don't know, maybe people like Markiplier after that. How about the Epstein Files? How about we go in order of priority? "
📚 5 more sections below
Sign up to unlock the complete summary with all insights, key points, and quotes
Get this summary + all future The WAN Show episodes in your inbox
100% Free • Unsubscribe Anytime
Sign up now and we'll send you the complete summary of this episode, plus get notified when new The WAN Show episodes are released—delivered straight to your inbox within minutes.