Gravitytr1
Posts: 230 +137
THIS IS ILLEGAL!!! and immoral! Why do we let these things slide?!
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
Gravitytr1
Posts: 230 +137
Working as designed!
DEMinSoCal
Posts: 38 +39
Who reads any terms and conditions? You do? Every page and every word? FWIW, just because someone put it in the T&C doesn't make it legal. You can put anything in a T&C, like "said purchaser agrees to have their bank account emptied by us if you make this transaction." It's in the T&C, but not legal.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 2,279 +4,583
Why don't you tell us that you don't know what pirating means without telling us you don't know what pirating means......
Endymio
Posts: 5,151 +4,811
Glad you asked. Because it is neither illegal nor immoral. Who above the age of five doesn't understand that a digital license isn't the same as physical ownership?
Very true, and, despite what people like @yRaz believe, if a TOS required you to use a company's own paid arbitrator, for instance, the courts would throw it out under the "unconscionable" or "meeting of minds" doctrines of contract law.
That said, a TOS that grants a revocable or temporary license is quite a different category. In fact, sheer common sense should tell you that **no** digital license can be guaranteed permanent. What if Sony goes bankrupt and shuts down entirely? From what servers would you then access this content?
Vanderkaum037
Posts: 78 +96
I'll take the paternalistic government please. It's preferable to this flavor of "gotcha capitalism" at any rate.
We are the government. It our right and our God-given duty to govern our own society. Who would argue against a transparent, efficient marketplace that empowers the consumer to make informed choices? A functional government capable of enforcing order is oppressive yes--to thieves and cheats. That's the Leviathan.
Endymio
Posts: 5,151 +4,811
All true, but you have the means to make an informed choice: read the terms. Yes, they can be overly long. But that's not corporate conspiracy, but because decades of case law and frivolous lawsuits have forced businesses to spell out every little trivial possibility in painstaking detail.
Ironically enough, the people who hate big business and advocate the loudest for regulations on them are the ones most responsible for perpetuating these large mega-corporations. There are many business sectors today where it is literally impossible for small firms to do business, as even a single $1 transaction requires an army of corporate attorneys to ensure you're not violating some rule or regulation somewhere.
Last edited:
DEMinSoCal
Posts: 38 +39
100% agreed but my point was in response to someone who made it sound like everyone reads every T&C before buying anything online. The truth is, unless you're a bad lawyer with time on your hands and no clients, no one reads the T&C first.
Vanderkaum037
Posts: 78 +96
In a perfect world we would all stay up late pouring over license agreements and TOS, doing our proper due diligence. Unfortunately the consumer really doesn't have that luxury. Even these businesses don't read each other's terms of sale--hence why the judiciary / government supplies default terms for when the parties' terms don't agree.
Regulation hurts small businesses more than larger ones capable of bearing the cost, yes totally true. But at least someone is bearing the cost. When someone harms someone else and is made to pay for it, that is simply justice. Justice should never be characterized as "frivolous."
brucek
Posts: 2,364 +3,799
I draw a distinction between events that were unforeseeable or out of the company's control, vs. facts already in evidence or decisions they made voluntarily.
Yes, servers might shut down if the company goes bankrupt, an EMP bomb goes off, or the earth stops spinning. Those are examples of possible but unlikely scenarios that could belong in a ToS. They may be unfortunate, but they are facts of life, and they are common sense.
On the other hand, if Sony knew they had only a 3 year license to those titles, but "sold" them in on a storefront that did nothing to disclose that fact and instead used language suggesting viewing rights in perpetuity, that's deceptive. I'd find that actionable.
Or let's say the underlying change was that Sony wanted to sell its catalog, and the new buyer did not want to honor the previous licenses. In that case I'd suggest it's too bad, the asset already had claims against it, which neither Sony nor the new purchaser should be able to unilaterally dismiss for convenience.
I'm not sure what happened in this specific case, just saying I see a range of more to less defensible scenarios.
Yes, servers might shut down if the company goes bankrupt, an EMP bomb goes off, or the earth stops spinning. Those are examples of possible but unlikely scenarios that could belong in a ToS. They may be unfortunate, but they are facts of life, and they are common sense.
On the other hand, if Sony knew they had only a 3 year license to those titles, but "sold" them in on a storefront that did nothing to disclose that fact and instead used language suggesting viewing rights in perpetuity, that's deceptive. I'd find that actionable.
Or let's say the underlying change was that Sony wanted to sell its catalog, and the new buyer did not want to honor the previous licenses. In that case I'd suggest it's too bad, the asset already had claims against it, which neither Sony nor the new purchaser should be able to unilaterally dismiss for convenience.
I'm not sure what happened in this specific case, just saying I see a range of more to less defensible scenarios.
Endymio
Posts: 5,151 +4,811
To demonstrate the flaw in your argument, consider: in the US, there are over 150,000 pages of laws and regulations at the state, federal, and local level -- more than you could ever read in a lifetime, especially as thousands of pages are added or changed every year. Yet if you are arrested for violating one single word of those laws, do you think a judge will accept the argument that you "didn't have time" to read them?
Unlike laws governing actions you cannot avoid, everyone on the planet understands that a purchase is a contract, and contracts have terms. In the case of Sony's TOS on content licenses, the terms are short: one single page. Anyone reading them should have no trouble understanding they're not buying a permanent license:
10.1. ...Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.
10.2. Except as stated in this Agreement, all Content provided through PlayStation is licensed on a non-exclusive and revocable basis to you for your personal, private, non-transferable, non-commercial, limited use on a limited number of PlayStation Devices ...
10.3. You may not sell, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, modify, adapt, arrange, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the Content.
10.4. You may not reproduce or transfer any portion of the Content, or use the Content for purposes of resale, public performance, display, distribution or broadcast, except as stated in this Agreement or as expressly permitted by us.
10.5. You may not create any derivative works of the Content, attempt to create the source code from the object code, or download, stream, or use any Content for a purpose not expressly permitted herein.
10.6. You may not bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, digital rights management or authentication mechanism existing in or in connection with PlayStation, or any of the Content offered through PlayStation.
10.7. You may not use viruses, spyware, or automated methods, such as bots or scripts to interact with Content, or otherwise in connection with your Account.
10.8. The limited license granted herein, and all use or access to the Content, is expressly conditioned on your compliance with this Agreement’s terms, applicable Usage Terms, other applicable agreements, if any, and all applicable copyright and intellectual property rights laws.
10.9. ...Upon termination of this Agreement, your Account, or license to any Content, you will immediately cease use of the Content and delete or destroy any copies....
Revoking the licenses isn't illegal, immoral, or (given this TOS) even unexpected. However, if someone did want to take legal action against Sony, I'd suggest that clause 10.1 could very well be actionable under "meeting of minds" doctrine. Sony here is redefining commonly-accepted terms like 'buy' and 'purchase', which is the root gravamen.
Man I really don't care for soft, weak people. How about you?
There may be dozens of good reasons to pull media from their servers.
But I can't see one good reason to do it without refunding the money they paid.
But hey Sony "fans" no worries. They will still have plenty to buy.
And you will buy them.
Last edited:
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
You have to break DRM to rip disks which breaches pretty much every case for fair use
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
If people are after refund they should go to studio canal, they’re the one revoking access. if idk rockstar pulled the servers for GTA Online would you complain at rockstar or Sony/Microsoft/Steam?
brucek
Posts: 2,364 +3,799
For refunds, I would approach the party I gave my money too, which is how refunds work pretty much always and everywhere. How the seller obtained their inventory is their business, not mine.
(I say "mine" in the hypothetical sense, I've never purchased any movies on PS, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing a shady situation even if it doesn't directly affect me.)
A rental implies a fixed term or recurring payment, and that's not what most digital storefronts are selling.
I think the most accurate description is exactly what it is...a license. If companies want to market digital content honestly, the button should probably say something like "Buy License" or "Acquire License" instead of simply "Buy." That tells consumers they're purchasing usage rights, not ownership.
The bigger issue isn't what we call it, it's making sure customers understand what they're paying for before they click. Right now, too many people equate a digital purchase with owning a physical copy, and legally those are two very different things.
I do agree that DRM free stores like GOG are much closer to true ownership because you can download and keep a copy that doesn't depend on the store continuing to exist. That's about as close as digital gets to owning physical media.
about30ninjas
Posts: 27 +65
What a bootlicker...I think you missed a spot licking those boots, give it another licking! This person is a perfect example of how you will own nothing and like it! What a tool! lol
Anyways, torrenting is a great way to preserve your purchased copies of movies.
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
Hard to bootlick something I don’t own?
Torrenting is illegal
I buy films mostly on disc bud dunno what you’re on.
Vanderkaum037
Posts: 78 +96
Sort of exactly illustrates my point that the typical person is not going to read §10.1 - 10.9 before clicking "I agree." I would guess maybe 1 in a 100. Simpler if we just make sure that "purchase" means "purchase" and not some other thing.
Keep in mind, none of this language is for the benefit of the consumer--it's all to protect the corporate entity from liability for the harm it will cause.
Yes we have lots of laws, maybe more than we need, but the only law you can be arrested for violating is the criminal code which is going to be mostly state law. And keep in mind, a corporate entity can't be arrested for anything, and its shareholders and officers are rarely if ever arrested for the criminal acts of the entity they control. The entity itself is fined. There is a moral hazard there (private benefits, socialized risks).
A word on contract law. Because of the parol evidence rule and merger/integration clauses which are in all of these contracts, there is actually very little "meeting of the minds doctrine" in U.S. contract law. Your subjective understanding of the plain and obvious meaning of the English language does not matter in U.S. if it conflicts with the language of the agreement. And it's truly amazing what is in these agreements, and the rights you can give away with a contract. I'm thinking about the Disney+ TOS that kept that guy from suing Disney for killing his wife.
What you mean is who should we go to. Because its a worthless cause and people who bend the knee to this are the reason why.
But going deeper, you answered your own question.
"if idk rockstar pulled the servers for GTA Online"
So if it was Rockstar that shut the servers, anyone wanting a refund would go to them.
Endymio
Posts: 5,151 +4,811
Heeello, Captain Obvious. If you want a contract that favors you, write it yourself-- and buy only from sellers who accept it. And if your $20 purchase of a movie license isn't enough economic clout to swing enormous movie studios over to your terms, I suggest you purchase your entertainment elsewhere.
Not even remotely correct. There are some 100,000 federal arrests each year, and ten times as many arrests for municipal violations.
Because the vast majority of those "criminal" acts aren't actual crimes against people, but a technical violation of a rule or regulation governing the business.
You forget something basic: Acts are committed by people, not by businesses. If an officer of a business commits a crime -- or knowingly orders an employee to do so -- they'll be charged accordingly. If the "crime", however, is only the aggregate result of many separate actions, each non-culpable in itself, it's not possible to charge anyone.
Of course that didn't happen. The reality very different: when a man purchased tickets online for Epcot, the TOS specified that any dispute would be settled via arbitration, which Disney referred to when the man filed suit because his wife died of an allergy at a restaurant independently owned and operated by a company other than Disney, though the restaurant was itself at a Disney shopping complex. Note: this would NOT have prevented a suit, it would have simply moved the venue to private arbitration.
But your misinformation is worse, because Disney itself dropped that argument, and, even had they not, the courts would certainly have ruled against it, on the 'meeting of minds' principle. Note that, despite this, the plaintiff in question voluntarily dropped his lawsuit against Disney ... most likely because the it wasn't clear that the restaurant -- much less involved Disney -- bore any responsibility for the allergic attack that led to his wife's death.
LordVile95
Posts: 447 +280
Right and studio canal are the ones who’ve revoked the licence
Vanderkaum037
Posts: 78 +96
You keep describing how the world SHOULD work like you're brand new.
For example, this "meeting of the minds principle" stuff is a non starter. I suspected you were making things up when you doubled down on this. Opposing counsel will simply point to the language in the agreement and that's summary judgment. Next. Every contract is going to have a merger clause or "entire agreement" clause, etc.--some kind of provision to the effect of "any negotiation that took place outside of this piece of paper is no longer relevant. All that matters are the words in this agreement." Understandably, courts favor these because it means they don't really have deal with a he said she said situation, it's all right there in the text of the agreement.
Nobody is out there negotiating contracts with Amazon or Sony prior to "purchasing" a video. I think you know this is an absurd notion.
Equally naive is the belief that officers of businesses are charged for their crimes. How many of the Sackler family had their doors kicked in and hands ziptied? Their company paid a fine. We're talking about the biggest drug traffickers since the East India Company. They killed tens of thousands, destroyed families, entire communities.
It's not a big deal, you seem very committed to your Ayn Rand worldview, I'm just surprised how passionate you are in support of this sort of nickel and diming that is essentially just scamming the American consumer. The market isn't correcting this kind of thing. I know in a perfect world it should, but take a look around. This stuff is everywhere.
When you buy something digitally, you’re really paying for access.
You don’t truly own a movie just because you bought it. What you get is the right to watch it, as long as that access is still available.
And it’s often not Sony specifically, but the companies behind the content and the rights involved. These are the people you should be angry at.
They wanted the movie(s) removed, and Sony removed it.
You don’t truly own a movie just because you bought it. What you get is the right to watch it, as long as that access is still available.
And it’s often not Sony specifically, but the companies behind the content and the rights involved. These are the people you should be angry at.
They wanted the movie(s) removed, and Sony removed it.
Similar threads
