p51d007
Posts: 5,172 +5,352
Does anyone see an INCREASE in torrenting content soon? If not already? 
Sony is deleting 551 movies and TV shows you bought on PlayStation, because you don't really own your digital purchases
- Thread starter DragonSlayer101
- Start date
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 2,279 +4,583
Why would you "buy" movies/shows on any digital platform? That's just ignorant.
Just like "buying" a game on a digital platform that doesn't allow you to download the installation files to your side or run the game without first connecting to said digital platform. For any reason your access to said "bought" media can be revoked and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
I still find and buy DVDs/Blu-rays. Copy them to my server so I can watch them when I want and where I want. I can even just pop a disc into my players and watch them that way at home.
Some strange takes on both sides of the debate here.
I would say the least any company should do when removing a title that someone paid a digital access that alludes to perpetual viewing (ownership is a loose term) would be to provide a digital download.
They can then remove the titles, and the people who wanted to continue viewing, at least have a mechanism to do that.
I would say the least any company should do when removing a title that someone paid a digital access that alludes to perpetual viewing (ownership is a loose term) would be to provide a digital download.
They can then remove the titles, and the people who wanted to continue viewing, at least have a mechanism to do that.
Some strange takes on both sides of the debate here.
I would say the least any company should do when removing a title that someone paid a digital access that alludes to perpetual viewing (ownership is a loose term) would be to provide a digital download.
They can then remove the titles, and the people who wanted to continue viewing, at least have a mechanism to do that.
I would say the least any company should do when removing a title that someone paid a digital access that alludes to perpetual viewing (ownership is a loose term) would be to provide a digital download.
They can then remove the titles, and the people who wanted to continue viewing, at least have a mechanism to do that.
Endymio
Posts: 5,152 +4,811
How is it possible for you to be wrong in every single post? Arbitration clauses invariably allow both parties to decide jointly on the arbitrator. In the case of Sony, for instance, if both sides can't agree on one, then a neutral administrator provides a list of recognized licensed arbitrators, you and Sony each rank them according your preference, strike anyone from the list who you believe has a conflict of interest, then the administrator chooses which best satisfies both sides.
It's right there in the TOS. Why not read it, instead of blathering on?
Last edited:
So much time spent on defending an evil company
For the record, I neither subscribe to nor make purchases on any digital movie platform, not considering it permanent. Companies do cover their bums from every side in their ToS. But most users, one may guess, do not read them, out of habit, time, and inability to decipher, and are under the impression they are buying a digital copy of a film. The companies are aware of this but carry on engaging in false advertising; what is exposed in the user interface does not square with the ToS. Essentially, these are long-term renting systems, disguised as permanent purchases, and that should be made clear for all users to understand.
Exactly. Unethical/immoral laws have existed; for example, apartheid South Africa.
brucek
Posts: 2,364 +3,799
If Sony did not have the ability or rights to sell the content for an unlimited term basis, they should have said so up front. And I mean in bold print right next to the price, not buried in a TOS. They should also not have used the word "Buy".
IMO these "sales" were fraudulent. When your sale to consumers includes some words in bold and at the top of the deal, and contradictory terms buried in the fine print, the bold and at top version should be considered controlling. Anything else is just inviting abuse.
IMO these "sales" were fraudulent. When your sale to consumers includes some words in bold and at the top of the deal, and contradictory terms buried in the fine print, the bold and at top version should be considered controlling. Anything else is just inviting abuse.
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
Maybe but I don’t really know why you’d buy a film on PS rather than something like Amazon, iTunes or even the play store considering you can watch those on multiple devices that aren’t manufactured by Sony.
More the sense of the platform. Why would you buy media on a platform that picks you to certain hardware that has a limited support window itself? Especially when other more open platforms exist on the hardware
Careful bud you’ve just admitted to piracy.
I have a binder full of dvds and blu rays too but sometimes digital is just more convenient. I can buy it on iTunes for example and download it to my Mac or iPhone or stream it through my TV or airplay to another device outside my home. It’s just easier.
The Talking Tech
Posts: 1,239 +2,842
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
Or maybe it’s the studio considering it’s them being pillocks
This has been a known issue for years, so I'm not sure why anyone is acting surprised. Sony has been through this before, and it's not the only company. The real problem is that people are sold something labeled as a "purchase," when in reality it's usually just a license that can disappear if the underlying business agreements change.
This isn't limited to movies and TV shows, either. The same legal concept applies to digital games. When you buy a game on PlayStation, Xbox, Steam, or Nintendo, you're generally buying a license...not ownership. The difference is that games are usually handled much better. A game may be delisted so new customers can't buy it, but existing owners can typically still download and play it. Movies and TV, on the other hand, are much more vulnerable to licensing disputes, which is why we're seeing hundreds of titles disappear.
None of this makes it consumer friendly. If companies can revoke access years later, calling it a "purchase" is misleading. It would be far more honest to call it what it is ... a perpetual license, subject to licensing agreements.
And on the complaints of, "The Terms of Service are too long to read." That's really not much of an excuse anymore. Nearly every major digital storefront has operated on a licensing model for years. You don't have to memorize every page of the agreement, but if you're spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on digital content, it's on you to understand the basics of what you're actually buying.
Maybe this is the wake up call consumers need. If you want something you know you'll have access to 10 or 20 years from now, physical media or DRM free purchases are still the closest thing to true ownership.
Convenience is great, but this is the tradeoff people have been warned about for years, yet chose to ignore.
This isn't limited to movies and TV shows, either. The same legal concept applies to digital games. When you buy a game on PlayStation, Xbox, Steam, or Nintendo, you're generally buying a license...not ownership. The difference is that games are usually handled much better. A game may be delisted so new customers can't buy it, but existing owners can typically still download and play it. Movies and TV, on the other hand, are much more vulnerable to licensing disputes, which is why we're seeing hundreds of titles disappear.
None of this makes it consumer friendly. If companies can revoke access years later, calling it a "purchase" is misleading. It would be far more honest to call it what it is ... a perpetual license, subject to licensing agreements.
And on the complaints of, "The Terms of Service are too long to read." That's really not much of an excuse anymore. Nearly every major digital storefront has operated on a licensing model for years. You don't have to memorize every page of the agreement, but if you're spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on digital content, it's on you to understand the basics of what you're actually buying.
Maybe this is the wake up call consumers need. If you want something you know you'll have access to 10 or 20 years from now, physical media or DRM free purchases are still the closest thing to true ownership.
Convenience is great, but this is the tradeoff people have been warned about for years, yet chose to ignore.
Who the F buys movies on a gaming console anyway? Like holy FS...
The Talking Tech
Posts: 1,239 +2,842
Sony gamers enabling their shitty business practices by shifting blame to others.
Typical Sony gamer.
yRaz
Posts: 9,313 +16,395
That's not how arbitration works. When I still owned my company we had to go to arbitration a number of times. The client tries to sue you, usually in small claims court, you tell the judge you want to goto arbitration and it was laid out in the contract and basically, it's out of the US court system at point. There was never a jointly chosen arbitrator, it was always a lawyer from the law firm that we hired
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
I don’t own a PS5, ultimately the people who have pulled the media is the studio who holds the licence, Sony really couldn’t do anything here and I would assume they will be updating their terms for the future to prevent this.
Endymio
Posts: 5,152 +4,811
Laughably absurd: why not at least attempt to be relevant? We're not discussing privacy nor random websites, but rather a contract between you and a vendor for which you've purchased products. Your argument is like claiming that, "since I purchase 1,462 homes per year, I shouldn't be expected to actually read all those purchase contracts.")
Did that conspiracy theory come with a tinfoil hat?
A well-known anti-capitalist radical; why am I not surprised? Her "Support Economy" diatribe is adored by neo-socialist zealots.
Endymio
Posts: 5,152 +4,811
So your claim is that because YOU -- the owner of a firm -- wrote a contract that denied your clients the right to independent arbitration, that this is "how arbitration works", despite the clear evidence of not just Sony's TOS but millions of real-world cases?
I'll call this what is is: complete BS. State and federal laws require the arbitrator to be independent and be free of conflict of interest. Any contract that required one party to use only the arbitrator hired by the other would be immediately thrown out by any judge.
"...In the U.S., an arbitration contract cannot enforce a clause that forces you to use someone with a known or inherent conflict of interest. Courts invalidate such clauses because genuine neutrality and fairness are fundamental to the legality of any binding arbitration process..."
onebignerd
Posts: 149 +78
But you NEVER DID own the movies or television shows you buy on VHS, LaserDisc, DVD or download!!! You are buying the right to play the movie and shows in private. No different than them pulling DVDs from stores. It mentions all that quite clearly in the copyright and piracy warnings before the movie and show. Even buying music on LPs, tapes, 8 track and CDs did not give you ownership of the music, ONLY the right to personal use.
Even computer software has always been a rental, NEVER ownership.
Even computer software has always been a rental, NEVER ownership.
CapNemo72
Posts: 119 +183
Lets do the basic first:
- Do not buy digital license, if you can not download the media you paid license for!
For the games I go to GOG, since they allow you to download install files,no need for online in most of the games.
But I do not know of any Movie/Music equivalent that offers the same. So I do not buy.
- Do not buy digital license, if you can not download the media you paid license for!
For the games I go to GOG, since they allow you to download install files,no need for online in most of the games.
But I do not know of any Movie/Music equivalent that offers the same. So I do not buy.
CapNemo72
Posts: 119 +183
Lets say the price was 20USD.
Who got the money?
Sony probably got 30%, so movie owner got their part.
Can't government force the copyright owner to give the users access to some other platform, since they are the ones removing license from Sony?
This should be solved on top level and its long overdue, globally.
Who got the money?
Sony probably got 30%, so movie owner got their part.
Can't government force the copyright owner to give the users access to some other platform, since they are the ones removing license from Sony?
This should be solved on top level and its long overdue, globally.
arrowflash
Posts: 744 +1,001
Even "perpetual license" is misleading. Digital purchases really should be called "rentals", a long-term rental with no set expiry date, but that can still be revoked anytime.
With this language, the average Joe and Jane would clearly understand what they're getting into.
The "rental" definition should be required by law and regulations to be used in the storefront, I.e. instead of a "purchase" button the customer would click a "rent" button, not only in the small print/TOS.
Services like GOG where you can download and archive a DRM-free copy without any online checks or dependencies, would still be allowed to call their products "purchases". I don't know if currently there is a similar store for music, tv series or movies.
Similar threads
