Seems like they should have agreed on better licensing agreements.

I see the point for subscription based services, but in this case they should have an agreement to continue streaming for those who have purchased it. The content provider has been paid for it too, right?

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think licensing agreements like this is not enough in a consumer court. When you purchase something, the consumer expects to be able to access it for as long as the distributor exists.

The services use the term "Purchase" or "Buy". If that is not actually the case, they should call it something else. Otherwise it is misleading the consumers, no matter where they hide the small print in the license agreement.

At a minimum I would expect a refund, as they are no longer providing the service that was paid for.