PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts
kotaku.com
kotaku.com
I have iTunes music going back to the day the store opened. Some of it is now missing from the iTunes cloud (or Apple Music or whatever it's called this week). It would be gone forever had I not made a local backup.
At least Sony's contacting customers. I was looking for songs I knew I had and couldn't find them until I searched a local backup.
When I complained, I got a boilerplate "tough titties, sometimes we lose licensing" response.
Always keep hard copies people.
This foolishness of trusting someone else to host your stuff for you? Well now you know.
Could you do that with these PlayStation store movies?
I'm sure the file disappearing from your iOS device is naught more than a convenient bug. It's not ideal, but I don't think one can realistically expect much more (at least not without actual consumer protection, which will probably take a while).
Imagine a supermarket losing the contract to sell Nescafé, so Nestlé comes into your house to take their coffee. Okay, Nestlé would totally do this anyway, but it’s bizarre.
<old man yelling at the wind sounds>
I still think this is crazy, mind.
Wrong, Kotaku. Lots of digital things are ours. Digital files on our personally owned HDDs and SSDs. Digital movies on DVD and Blu-Ray discs on our shelves. Digital ISO files on hard drives that are ripped from the aforementioned digital physical DVDs.
What you meant to say is, streaming content is not ours - and that is true by definition, because the data is streamed from somewhere else. Someone else can always delete files, take down servers, or go out of business entirely.
The word digital contrasts with analog. Digital and physical are two independent axes - there are digital physical things, digital virtual things, analog physical things, and analog virtual things.
Digital = expressed by discrete bits of encoded digits (1s and 0s). Analog = lossy and necessarily physical
A "digital physical thing" is just a physical thing (disc) with digital things encoded on it.
The image of an apple, stored as an analog signal on a magnetic tape.
>A "digital physical thing" is just a physical thing (disc) with digital things encoded on it.
Correct, a digital physical thing stores digital virtual things, and an analog physical thing stores analog virtual things.
If I am following along...
analog virtual: representation of apple on photographic film digital physical: disc with film.mkv
Given the two remaining combinations:
analog physical: unexposed photographic film? digital virtual: binary-encoded data (film.mkv)?
Anything beyond this and it becomes a philosophical or metaphysical discussion though.
Arguably the raw binary data still has a physical aspect, because it hasn't been interpreted yet (other than a reordering by the file system). The virtual thing is what the data ultimately represents.
Another subtlety is that a drawing on a page would be an analog representation of the thing, but if the drawing has the shape 右 and the page is placed between two doors, there would be a virtual idea encoded digitally as well.
[0] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK-Wicsj5rAasS2g7e-Z9eFUd...
I don't care if some lawyer suit says it's ok because I really bought a license and not the content. Screw that. I bought a movie. If that's allowed by the law, the law deserves no respect.
Even authors are dependent on their editors, so the idea of 'giving money to the people who create the things we like' is more complex than it may seem at first glance.
It actually already got a bit more fuzzy with Blu-Ray and especially with later BD+ doesn't it? You own some encrypted data, but there is absolutely no guarantee you will always have access to a player with the right keys and a TV that is compatible and isn't refusing to play it.
It already drove the needle way past acceptable copy protection, do not buy Blu-Rays!
Buy this definitions, DVDs are also problematic, given they're also encrypted.
Blu-rays are universally cracked by this point, so I fail to see the problem. MakeMKV is not going away to the point you won't be able to rip your blu-ray.
UHD blu-rays are a different story, since they added more encryption.
Some warned that everything would work that way eventually anyway, and everybody (including me) blew them off.
Well, they were wrong, weren't they? The way it works now is much worse: what you're purchasing is a license for playback for an indeterminate amount of time, which can be arbitrarily and unilaterally terminated by the provider.
if you sell a game you should have to have bought a license to use the music (and similar) in the game permanently (for given game sold, new sold revision can change what they contain but only if there isn't deceptive advertisement and it's very clearly labeled that it's a different revision/the content changed!).
1. Unless you write a damned clear company charter, Gabe, get on that.
If that minimum drives customers away, these companies should put more work into ensuring their minimum availability is a good deal.
I am pretty sure that whatever contract streaming platform has with publishers has a some kind of date. It might be unpleasantly short (a year or month) making it look like a bad deal, but that's the point.
In current situation the "unknowable" date might be as short as 1 day. It's up to the good will of streaming service to warn ahead of time. Knowing what you get and the quantity of it is the most basic part of fair deal.
If a streaming service has only negotiated a 1 month license they shouldn't be allowed to re-license the content for longer period. If they want to offer longer deal they need to negotiate better license with publisher or take the risk on themselves by being prepared to give refund in the case of failure to deliver promised service. Telling that they guarantee only single year of service to provide doesn't prevent them from providing it longer.
If a travel agency rents a bus for a day, offering a 1 week trip around Europe would be considered a scam.
"Verb
"purchase (third-person singular simple present purchases, present participle purchasing, simple past and past participle purchased)
"To buy, obtain by payment of a price in money or its equivalent."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/purchase
"Verb
"buy (third-person singular simple present buys, present participle buying, simple past bought, past participle bought or (archaic, rare, dialectal) boughten)
"(transitive, ditransitive) To obtain (something) in exchange for money or goods."
You can still offer limited-time subscriptions, of course, and you can extend the minimum deadline for your server-dependent software to free as often as you want, just make sure people know what the deal is when they buy your software.
DVDs and other media also aren't yours to buy, they're just licenses and a physical container to use that license. You can buy software the same way you can buy a DVD, and you can rent software the same way you can rent a movie on a digital storefront.
So what kind of transaction is buying(2) something? What do you get in exchange for money? It's clearly not a good, so is it a service? Is continued permission to use the software a service? Then if that service is interrupted the consumer should be entitled to some kind of reimbursement from the provider, right? Because otherwise the provider has an incentive to stop the service.
This should be criminal. If the sale copy says "buy" "own" "purchase" then they must not be allowed to remove your license to that content by any means.
I'm fine with them removing content from storefronts. I'm even okay with them saying "you're responsible for your downloaded copies, if we decide to discontinue licensing you won't be able to redownload". I'm not fine with them saying "buy" "own" "purchase" and then coming in later "oh we decided to change the licensing situation and so you no longer have access to what you have 'purchased'". That is theft, more than copyright infringement ever could be.
At one point, about 10 years ago, one of the major Hollywood studios came to us and required us to change that because they believed that exactly this sort of thing would happen and we would all be setting ourselves up for liability because consumers would rightfully assume that that meant they owned the movie "forever."
I get the feeling, but this whole outrage about what words mean is sterile if you don't actually engage with what is sold here, by who from who, what was the contract, how it was setup and why.
How do you feel about the right holders who also didn't bother providing simple "buy, download and it's forever yours" avenues to get that content ? Or are you just happy being outraged and will go back to your daily life afterwards ? (that's what I'll do, because I was already renting stuff when video tapes were a thing, and I see the current situation as a logical equilibrium, including what happens on the seven seas)
A ticket that would allow you entrance into a particular concert. Is this some sort of rhetorical question? I can't decipher what it's attempting to illustrate.
> it should not be legal for the product page to say “purchase” or “buy” when [...]
The use of "buy" and "purchase" were never restricted to ownership or unlimited rights, we buy licenses, usage rights, priority tokens, all sorts of lottery tickets and weirder abstractions every day.
GP probably wants digital movies to have a specific purchase model, but the discussion has to be about the model, not the vocabulary. Right now I actually have no idea what they'd be willing to accept as a middle ground to rights management.
The same is true with movie downloads, except that Sony very strongly, probably deceptively and maliciously, implies the "lifetime pass" part while they full well know they're only selling you a ticket for access during a limited timeframe.
We wouldn't have this article or discussion if Sony had been truthful and had their store pages not say "purchase movie", but "purchase temporary ticket".
This comparison makes no sense. When you buy a ticket to a concert you fully expect to be allowed access to said concert. If it gets cancelled because this or that studio owns some random right you fully expect to be refunded.
> I was already renting stuff when video tapes were a thing
Good for you. These guys also propose rental with a rent button, and a purchase button for what you'd expect be purchasing the movie. Do you still not see what the issue is and why the debate on what word means is anything but sterile?
> Or are you just happy being outraged and will go back to your daily life afterwards ?
Wow, this is gratuitous and extremely belittling. I hope you feel good smelling your own farts.
You're explaining that while the ticket was a purchase, it had specific limitations and the vendor would follow a specific contract, with specific recourse for people in eligible cases.
That's exactly what's happening with Playstation.
Some people might not understand the contract, but we're decades into this now, it's time we're past "the button said 'buy'" discussions.
What a great argument.
To people, "buy" when in the context of a movie largely means owning the freaking thing.
> we're past "the button said 'buy'" discussions.
That's normalization of deviance. It's fine if you're fine with that scam, don't come onto people who aren't.
A ton of stores just moved away from the "buy" language and replaced the buttons with "order", "add to cart", "pay" etc. Stores like Amazon kept the "buy" button while expliciting it's for a license. All the whining on the meaning of buying just went into word tweaking with no further effects.
We need to talk about digital licenses, it's complex and there's no simple answer, but IMHO we first need to get past what the button says.
You bought a ticket that was advertised as a ticket for a concert and you got that. No one ever claimed or implied you were buying the musicians so they would perform the concert for you whenever you like.
When you 'buy' a movie in the way we are talking about here it is advertised and implied as buying the movie in the sense of owning a copy (or the right to access a copy) of the movie to watch whenever you want forever. What you get is more similar to an unlimited ticket to a cinema that allows you to watch that movie as long as it is shown in the cinema, but the cimema can decide to stop showing the movie any time. Unlike the concert ticket that is purposefully not clearly communicated (and the concert has a fixed service you purchase (one concert) unlike the movie ticket where the service you get is dependent entirely on the goodwill of the cinema)
I'd argue that it is not, especially regarding advertisement.
It could have been an expectation in the early DVD days, but at the time the Playstation Store started providing movies we were already deep into the digital store area, and we'd already had a bunch of "you own nothing" stories.
To my point the Kotaku title goes "_Reminding Us_ Nothing Digital Is Ever Truly Ours", we've been through this many times now.
If I am buying a DVD, I own that copy regardless of the studio and the distributor being in legal trouble or not. If I "buy" or "purchase" something online, I expect the same thing.
I'm not always a fan of the EU over-regulating some things but I feel like they should start fining companies who want to re-define the meaning of the word purchase
It’s less about the money and more about:
1) Having a single place to go for any TV show or movie. I found it very frustrating trying to figure out what service had which show - sometimes none of them have it (a few things are still not streamable at all - e.g. “Sharky and George”)
2) Knowing that my streaming service isn’t downgrading the video quality. Even my lay friends notice the picture quality improvement vs Amazon / Hulu etc.
3) Jellyseer lets my friends request media that gets auto-downloaded. So it’s a curated list of content which helps me discover high quality stuff to watch.
In fact, for those things, I'd say a private tracker isn't that interesting because of the share requirements.
That said the experience is 1000x better than using public trackers. It’s like if IMDB had a download button. Basically anything you could ever want in any quality you could ever want in a perfect organized library with all the metadata, consistent seeders and no DMCAs.
Not too many years back you only needed to be Elite on the big music site to cop an invite to PTP in the forums. Now it’s TM there which is much more work but still obtainable.
If it costs me a little bit of money to store this information, I don't consider it to be "losing" the piracy game. I still have a lot of control and no one has a clue what I'm storing thanks to symmetric encryption, guid names and fixed chunk sizes. As far as Amazon is concerned, it appears as if I'm just running backups for some boring enterprise application.
Could Amazon take it all away tomorrow? Sure. But I've had an account with them since 2014 and something like this has never come up before. At worst, I'd expect a deprecation warning with a solid 12 months of time to figure out an alternative.
There is no way you are going to beat the durability of S3 at home. Durability seems to be ~the entire point here. At some level you need to consider which evil is the lesser evil, at least if you value your free time and the possibility of actually enjoying all this media you've spent so much effort acquiring.
That said, wouldn't you have an invite for PassThePopcorn? Never heard of this one, I thought it was yet another iteration of that popcorn streaming app that was popular a decade ago. I always managed with public trackers, never cared about the entire interview process: I hate it for work, I hate it for fun even more. Email in the profile if you wish to share.
If I am the reason for damaging my purchase then I am fine with that characteristic of the purchase.
Same happens with books, you buy the copy and if you don't take care of it, soon it will become unreadable.
I am fine with that characteristic of the purchase, I am not fine when my purchase can be taken away from me abruptly by the decision of random Joe
Recordable discs are another matter, though. Much more sensitive because the pits are "burned" instead of "pressed" (not sure about the correct terminology). And some of those materials were so bad that back in the day, I often had blank discs that went bad before I even had a chance to burn them. Nowadays I'm using M-Discs and hope they'll hold up their promise. They should outlive me, anyway.
1. To my knowledge, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
[1] (a)1(C) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
In Finnish criminal law the threshold is "significant harm", but given that there were already multitude of ways to get around DVD copy protection the "significant harm" clearly isn't very high bar. Also both distribution the method and actually using the method are both criminalized.
Finnish Copyright Act does individual to bypass copy protection to view the content, but it notably does say that you are not allowed to copy the work.
Unfortunately I cannot find the exact page right now, but I found one of the appeal documents from from https://www.yumpu.com/fi/document/view/38482300/1-helsingin-.... It's probably under https://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/nikki/, but it's no longer available and Internet Archive is currently giving 503 when trying to access the old pages.
There's a quote on his Norwegian Wikipedia page from the then minister of justice: 'Some people may think [circumventing DVD DRM] is cool and stuff, but this is an activity that is devastating for the industry'.
If it really is devastating for the industry, the industry should really figure itself out. And for that matter, with hindsight, it doesn't look like it really did anything.
https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/#tyler-jame...
> In the case of file sharing networks, companies claim that peer-to-peer file sharing enables the violation of their copyrights. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reasoning is that if a copyrighted work is on a file sharing network, whoever uploaded or downloaded the file is liable for violating the copyright because they are reproducing the work without the authorization of the copyright holder or the law.
Both uploading and downloading is a violation. All the major cases are against distributors, because those are the big fish. But rights holders have gone after individuals: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/lit...
if you dont distribute this to others or brag on a forum about all your streams, no one will even know.
Is this seriously true in the US? I doubt this is the case in any European jurisdiction.
Recording radio and TV is legal in any other case (the relevant companies didn't want that to be the case either, but we hadn't yet fallen far enough down the hole yet for that possibility to disappear).
To make another comparison:
You record House on your Tivo = Legal (you now have a file you can play anywhere (barring DRM, but libre DVRs exist), you've copied it)
You 'record' House on Netflix (either literally with OBS or just capturing the video stream via some other means) = Illegal
The only difference is the source. The actual video stream could be functionally identical. There's the fact that actual TV and radio isn't on-demand, but that to me is just an implementation detail, and not an inherent reason to treat them differently (then again, I'm not deep into the mindset of defending copyright).
when a server downloads data to you, the server is creating a copy on your hardware right out of the gate.
a stream is a download. a central server, is pushing bits into your hardware, and making a copy on your hardware.
restricting any copying at all means your hardware cant use what you were legally given, because by a split hair definition, the bits are being copied when they move from memory address to register address vice versa.
appending header and footer to a data structure is not copying the data.
the real problem unilaterally, is when you are not a legal distributor, and you provide a copy to someone else. [dont do that]
I can still legally record cable TV (or is that also illegal in the US?), even though I probably need to pay a lot more for it than I would for both Netflix and open broadcasts.
> when a server downloads data to you,
*Uploads.
> the server is creating a copy on your hardware right out of the gate.
As opposed to what?
> a stream is a download. a central server, is pushing bits into your hardware, and making a copy on your hardware.
The same way a TV broadcast is (barring implementation details). What's the difference between me displaying that data instantly and it then going to /dev/null, and me sending that to copy.mkv? I can do the latter legally with TV, why not everything else?
tv-stream.ts > /dev/dri/card0 = Legal
tv-Stream.ts > copy.mkv = Legal
netflix-stream.ts > /dev/dri/card0 = Legal
netflix-stream.ts > copy.mkv = Illegal (why?)
> restricting any copying at all means your hardware cant use what you were legally given, because by a split hair definition, the bits are being copied when they move from memory address to register address vice versa.
Yes.
> the real problem unilaterally, is when you are not a legal distributor, and you provide a copy to someone else.
Obviously. But I'm not doing that when recording TV, radio, Netflix, a blu-ray, your mum, you name it. I'm only making a copy for myself. Yet it's legal in some cases but not in others, just because the implementation is different.
Tivo is legal because cable providers are legally transmitting their cable programming.
Things get different on Netflix because recording Netflix requires circumvention of DRM, which is its own can of worms.
My understanding is that this is in fact the case, since the relevant laws don't even touch the listening side of radio/TV (modulo jurisdiction).
It's like buying a pirated DVD from a random shop. It's illegal to run a shop selling pirated films, but is it illegal to buy their DVDs? If there is a law for that, there's probably a 'knowingly' in there too.
"Asking a computer to not copy things is like asking water to not be wet."
the articles definition "a liquid’s ability to maintain contact with a solid surface" Water has this property therefor water is wet.
On the topic of silly semantics, science as a discipline has the tendency to paint itself into linguistic paradoxes where the words does not mean what it means.
An example is "bug" where there is a (sighs) true bug(a very specific type of insect) But the one that really bothers me is Stonehenge. Stonehenge is the origin of the term, it literally means hanging stone. but... they started cataloging other similar circle-of-stone type monuments and calling them henges, a henge got defined to be more specifically a circle of stones with an inner ditch. But Stonehenge has an outer ditch.... So Stonehenge is not a henge... (Sighs again).
I disagree with your interpretation as that is using "wet" as a verb i.e. water can wet a surface.
I had no idea about the Stonehenge misnomer - I shall attempt to wrangle that into future conversations as I have some friends that are into ancient history/geology.
My favourite naming oddities are usually around fruits and nuts - a banana is a berry, but a strawberry isn't and of course, a brazil nut isn't a nut at all.
"You wouldn't still a car" etc etc..
Piracy is a real crime, I am tempted to describe it as theft of goods under transport. But it is probably much more complex than that. It also shares many similarities with organized crime(a company of men decide to ignore the law).
Anyway you slice it, people probably just want the crime to sound(worse/cooler) than it really is. It always sorts of bugs me to equate one of the worst crimes to one of the least. Might as well call it "software rape" at that point. And that is probably closer to the actual crime than piracy.
"PlayStation Store users who bought a limited license to play a movie on approved devices and approved displays, revocable at any moment with no or minimal notice".
There, FTFY.
It's almost already like this. Buying a movie is sometimes the exact same price or only a dollar more. They know what they're doing.
Initially, the new button might say "buy license" and then eventually it will go back to just "buy".
Unless you get an irrevocable full digital copy of the product, the “buy” button should technically be called “lend” or “borrow”, as you lose the product when the shop disappears.
But that doesn’t solve the deteriorating ownership problem as consumers will choose to borrow due to convenience even if they know they get to keep nothing. Especially if that is the “only” option.
Digital products are hollow and short-term, yet still asking full price or even quadruple the price of physical products (happens a lot with games).
Consumer protection would mean that buying means owning, with all perks and hassle that comes with it.
There currently are no long-term protections. “Stop killing games” is a reflection of that, but needs to broaden.
Edit: clarification
You also get the play the same version stored on DVD regardless where you are. You are limited by location when you purchase it online, and sometimes they might even automatically swap the version / cuts for you depending on your location.
We really need a storage media that last 100+ years, store 200GB+, tiny footprint, and inexpensive to produce.
Are they negotiating that as part of the deal with their vendors? Or is it as simple as "We're not dicks." ?
The licensing deal made by movie studios does not work like that because the studios are intentionally predatory. The distribution agreements are temporary and can involve periodic payments. Literally Netflix rents movies from the studios and rents them back to you. The studios reserve the right to cancel distribution deals at any time.
Steam isn't innocent either. The instance that comes to mind is Order Of War: Challenge (https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-remov...) but I've also seen people say other games have been removed from their libraries or silently replaced with "remastered" versions that removed things like licensed music. Publishers have also taken games from people's libraries by revoking their keys. Steam says publishers can do this whenever they want. In one case, after the sale they thought a player should have paid them more money (https://old.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/w9jpd5/warning_publi...)
Make it work the same as delisted games where you can go into your purchase history and click download.
Look how it works over at Steam. If a license expires, even if the publisher goes out of business, Steam removes a game from its storefront, but the files are still on their servers and they keep them available for anyone who purchased a license. I think the only cases where they actually removed files from their servers and blocked redownloads were when there was an actual legal or liability issue forbidding them from continuing to offer the files (for example if they contain malware).
When streaming first took off piracy hit all time lows, but it’s already been coming back in a big way and I’m sure will only continue to do so going forward as things like this keep happening and streaming keeps getting more expensive and fragmented.
I stuck to buying hard copies and dwindled off the series as they started to charge just to play multiplayer.
Sony created a contract where this was possible, is who sold the product to customers, and is physically carrying out the act.
They deserve every bit of blame.
[1] https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Sony%27s_attempted_removal_of_...
https://filmstories.co.uk/news/funimation-streaming-app-to-s...
(For those without the background: In 2020, Sony bought Crunchyroll and in 2024 merged it with Funimation (acquired by Sony subsidiary Aniplex in 2017). Since Crunchyroll had the larger streaming service, this was done by moving the Funimation library to Crunchyroll. However, Funimation also has a business selling digital copies, not just streaming access, which was discontinued including access to purchased media)
And people wonder why some people sail the high seas.
I don't mean to disagree with you, and I have basically no expertise in this area, just shocked by the whole thing.
Tech EULAs are just absurdly long, and I'm sure they've expanded since this article was written in 2020: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizin...
Which in many (not all) states can promptly be followed by a Motion to Transfer/Notice of Removal/whatever local custom to a county/circuit/district court.
Once moved to a higher court, you will lose because you don't know the procedures, deadlines, and customs of that venue. Then, the counterparty will often be awarded fees.
sudo pacman -S transmission-gtk
I don’t trust any provider to honor purchases I made 20 years from now. I really wish I could, as it would simplify things for me.
Add an old Quadro card for hardware decoding, or go with an Intel CPU for Quick Sync, throw some IronWolf drives inside, install your favorite Linux distro, and you’re off to the races.
Yes, managing a server is more work than just signing up for Netflix or whatnot, but it’s definitely worth the effort.
[1]: A quick search shows me a Ryzen 3 3200G build with 16 GB of RAM for $200, and electronics are super expensive in Brazil.
Top movies include Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, The Graduate, Moonlight, Manchester by the Sea, Room, Silver Linings Playbook, Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Pan's Labyrinth.
But no. It's purchased content. That is being deleted. That's insane. Even if an EULA states they can do this, there should be statutory rights that overrule this.
I notice that Sony calls it "previously purchased" content. As if it's ok to do this because it's been a while ago.
It'll be all the more critical in years to come when we get more and more AI remastered versions of stuff so even stuff pre-2020 is slop.
"due to our content licensing agreements" ..so this is just Sony placating to someone else's demands. The question is who are "they" and why these films? Maybe these films end up being revised with alternate endings or tweaked characters.
If you see these films, what sort of person will you become? Is that someone who is undesirable?
Terminator 2, Rambo 1, Cliffhanger and Total Recall. We can't have that!
It's just a theory.
Are PlayStation users younger than average? That's important to note too.
Also interesting: recently YT removed the ability to see Likes in one's uploaded video list, only views and comment counts. The message could be: "be well-known, but don't be popular" Why?
Yet I think "Sort by Likes" would be a boon for YT creators and that never even existed, with the Likes column even removed a week or two after I suggested it.
If buying isn’t owning, pirating isn’t stealing. Fuck those guys.
It’s been 20 years since I’ve pirated shit, but here we are again…
A queerly sticky ego defense mechanism.
> 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
I mean, this is chef's kiss level of deceit. No parody could top that.
Any jurisdiction where a company can just put "when we say you'll own it, it doesn't mean you'll own anything" in their contracts and get away with it, is broken.
If it was an open ecosystem, we would have alternative options like we have in PC such as GoG for games. I know movie industry is stupid to begin with but it’s reasonable the make DRM free copy of the movies you own or even pirate at this point given how hostile the whole industry is until they move to more open approaches.
Maybe EU should crack down on closed eco systems and make it mandatory to side load things officially on anything that runs external apps.
It is ironic how digital has led to us owning nothing, now that it should have been so much easier!