Hacker News Reader

Comment by cube00 | Hacker News Reader

Sony's one sentence notice is pretty grim considering how much money they made from these sales (sorry licensing).

From September 1, 2026, due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library.

Thank you, PlayStation Store [1]

At least in 2023 it was two sentences and then they somehow negotiated new licencing arrangements after the massive backlash 10 days before the end date. [2]

Guess we'll see if this clawback has the same backlash.

[1]: https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/psvideocontent/

[2]: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/

View on HN

> due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content

So when they 'sold' the content, they were already aware that they were selling something with an expiry date. Why would you even agree to a license to resell something with a time limit?

There should be some kind of law that says that any license agreement intended for reselling to the public should be a perpetual license.

And if the license is not perpetual, there needs to be laws that stop companies from using the terms “buy.” They should have to state it for what it is: a long term rental. Sony could have up front disclosed “You are paying $x.yz to rent access to this media until [date]”

I think it’s important for consumers that this verbiage is applied to everything where the license is non-transferable and not perpetual. Stop calling it “Buy/Own” and start calling it “Renting.” This applies to software too. I didn’t “buy” access to the Adobe Creative Suite, I’m renting it.

Alternately, we could have some regulation that says that if you license your content to anyone in a way that allows them to provide access with a "buy" button, the license automatically becomes perpetual and irrevocable.

The same with movies, TV shows, and video games using licensed music. If you agree to let a song be in a work you should expect that song to be in that work forever. I'm tired of media never seeing the light of day because of the expense of re-licensing the music or even having it re-released but with all the music removed or replaced by generic tracks.

Such contracts can and have been negotiated. It's simply - as logic would dictate - more expensive. Just like buying a house is far more expensive than renting it for a few years.

Adobe did this with their perpetually licensed software. If you install Lightroom 6 today, the face detection and maps features do not work because they didn't pay for perpetual licenses for the libraries they used.

I purchased it, and you're taking it away? Then either I didn't actually purchase it (despite the word appearing in the notice), or you're stealing it from me.

Which is it, Sony?

The legal reality is that you probably purchased a license, tied to your PlayStation account, and revocable at any time for any reason. You don't buy a movie, you buy access to watch it as many times as you want during the period in which it is licensed to you. This is, of course, bullshit; this doesn't or can't apply to a physical DVD, or even a DRM free digital copy, so it is a measurable step backwards for consumers.

These content agreements would have end dates when they are negotiated so they should be required to disclose those at the time you "purchase your license".

If they renegotiate and extend the arrangement then update the UI with the new date.

Sony couldn't seriously believe they were going to be able to renew these licenses forever given how many streaming services are out there who need to fill their catalogues.

Instead it's better for sales to show a "buy" button with no date[1] so customers don't back out when they realise they'll be spending close to the retail purchase price to only rent it for a few years.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvJSpB9cb6Y

> they should be required to disclose those at the time you "purchase your license".

they probably do disclose it, but it's in the intentionally verbose and obtuse 20 page T&C that no one reads when they make the purpose

When the legal reality does not align with actual reality, there is injustice of the worst kind.

The button says "buy" not "rent" or "license".

That should be enough to defeat all the fine print, click wrap hidden clause clever maneuvering bs. The merchant is lying to the buyer. The merchant should bear liability for deceiving the buyer. The merchant (Sony) knew what they were selling. They lied to make it seem like you'd have that video in your library forever. Sony needs to give a refund with interest. Simple as that.

I agree. I'm sure someone will try to split hairs and say that "well, buying a license is buying something, just maybe not the thing you wanted," to which I say, it should be disclosed up front. Simple as.

Thank you for making a rare valid use of the term "stealing" in regard to intellectual property.

This isn’t that difficult. You purchased the ability to use it while they let you, and yes, it was in the terms.

They said they were selling it, all over their site. The button said "buy". They can put whatever crap they like in a section that they know nobody ever reads, that doesn't negate what they said in large print up front and no sane court will entertain the notion that it does.

A restaurant can't opt out of food safety by putting "not for human consumption" in the fine print.

That “Thank you” comes off as a strong “Fuck you”.

As an ex-Sony employee, that is deeply held cultural belief: Sony doesn’t do anything wrong. It is absolutely a fuck you.

It drives me nuts that Sony makes some of the absolute best cameras on the market while being douche canoes in every other aspect. Bambu Labs has definitely taken that lesson to heart in producing great hardware that crushes consumer rights.

Disney is the same way. They hire some of the most talented and creative people on Earth to make wonderful works of art and then act like complete assholes in every other aspect of their business.

Why isn't there a class action lawsuit from all the people who bought studio canal content on the Playstation store and now cannot watch it?

Learned helplessness? Maybe I'm wrong and it'll still happen. I'm sure that everyone who got screwed after buying those movies would love waiting years to eventually get a coupon code for the playstation store while lawyers rake in millions though.

So is the refund they give for the original amount or inflation adjusted?

The inflation-adjusted amount of a $0 refund comes out to... $0.

Thousands of dollars worth of games in some PSN accounts. Madness if this ever happens to games as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com