Unfortunatly tthe above view has been pushed into student by those that are anti-capitalism.
Anyone who has looked into the stock market knows it is not gambling because investing represents owning a fraction of a real, income-generating business, whereas gambling is a zero sum game based entirely on random chance. When you buy a stock, you deploy capital into the economy to help companies grow, create products, and hire workers. Over the long term, the broader stock market historical trend is positive because it reflects economic growth, corporate innovation, and rising corporate earnings. In contrast, gambling has a built-in negative expectation where the house always wins, creating no economic value and offering no underlying assets to support your investment.

You have actually proof not conspiracy lies?
Quick show it.
This is just a conspiracy garbage they saw Biden was actually doing and there was proof so the smart democrats figured lets blame Trump for doing it and they got the fools to follow.

I bought a Ford F-150 XLT (the full-hybrid pickup) and was very disappointed to find that several of the features (Including Blue Cruise and navigation) were subscription-based with an initial free period of a year or so.

Other than that the vehicle is fantastic - but was very pricey when I bought it, so having to pay over and over for the features was a very annoying surprise. (They quit working rather than quit updating when the subscriptions run out.)

... a bunch of cancer progression theories based on cell culture progression had to be thrown out when it was discovered that the cultures were being contaminated by a particularly robust and aggressive cancer cell culture, HeLa, which had contaminated lab equipment like environmental chambers or survived equipment sterilization and eventually took over culture lines in labs.

Anytime I've rented or borrowed something, from an actual place, they have placed a defined return date on it.

"We'll revoke access when we feel like it" doesn't sound like a proper rental. How do I know I'll even be able to finish watching the movie once before it is revoked?

The courts generally require contracts to have "mutual interest" or whatever the term is. Basically, both parties have to get something out of the deal. I pay the money, I get access to the movie.

If the rental period is indefinite, then the only reason to stop offering it should be technical or logistical - IE something actually broke in the company's systems. We were stupid, consolidated on this one cloud system that turned out to be based in one room in some guy's basement, there are no backups, and there was a fire.

Not a company decision to not renew a licensing agreement.

I agree.

Probably not as good for Sony, like I said, the money they saved on the contracts was probably minimal to nothing, now they're eating a whole lot of bad press over it. For those who have lost the titles and care, how likely are they to buy from Sony again?

This might not work out the way you think. Generally speaking, with torrenting, you are not prosecuted for downloading the media. The prosecution is for UPLOADING the media, at least fragments of it, to others.

You'd need to set yourself up as an absolute leech - 0% upload. Might take a while to get the media file in that case. In which case one is unlikely to get the threatening letter in the first place.

Yes, the court system is nitpicky enough for that to matter.

It is going to depend on when they knew they were going to force the switch. If they knew internally they were going to do it a year ago then issues, if they figured they might need to do it but nothing was finalized then not really a legal issue.
Business have the right to change.
the problem they would have is if the ads guarnenteed or implied a lifetime of the such services.

At least to be like Steam - it is understood that people who buy things get said license in perpetuity.
IE they might buy a 10 year license for SELLING said titles, but they still get to provide said titles to those that purchased them after the license expired.
It sounds like Sony, for what was probably a trivial savings, wrote bad contracts. Or their system can't handle not having something for sale yet still downloadable by those who have previously purchased it.

Yes, but once one is ripping, the important part is the digital copy without DRM under your control, not the DVD itself.

Even the physical copy in hand doesn't guarantee continued possession. Besides just needing to protect the disc from things like fire, physical abuse, and more, an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two.

I'm sure they have some definition for it somewhere in the legislation, probably an appendix or glossary.
"Designed to be worn on the body during operation or use, such as watches, hearing aids/headphones, body monitors, glasses, etc..."

Two decades old would probably mean you're considering NiMH rechargeable vs Alkaline primary - 1.2V vs 1.5. On the other hand, NiMH cells have much lower internal resistance, which makes it such that NiMH cells can actually provide more power, as the 1.5V of Alkaline gets pulled down to 1.2V or less much faster, as load increases.
Today, it'd be LiIon more often, though lithium primary cells exist as well, and both tend to be ~3V and low internal resistance. Yes, the primary cell, along with chemistries like zinc-air, are very long lived, but as it is easy to make the battery last all day and then just recharge at night, not actually that big of a deal.

1. Sony should be forced to refund the original purchases, no matter how old they are. If the consumer was only "borrowing" the media, then Sony was only "borrowing" the money.
2. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of Rum. IE Piracy.

His show was costing over $100 million a year, higher than competators, with him getting over $15 million. the total cost and the lack of money he was bring in from ads was low, means that the the show was a money loss.
But sure the colored man got him removed, keep believing your conspiracy garbage.