Studio Canal Movies purchased on PlayStation Store removed without refund
playstation.com
playstation.com
Aka, due to their mistake. When Sony originally signed an agreement, they should have insisted on a perpetual license for anything already in the customer's library.
I was initially inclined toward some minimal sympathy for Sony here, but I see no good faith reason why they'd sign a licensing agreement which allows the other party to do this.
When iTunes + came out, you had 2 options, you could buy a song for $0.99 or you could be the plus version for more, I don't remember but it was like $1.35 or something. Plus had a higher bit rate and it wasn't encrypted.
Suppose you could buy a movie for $12.00, how much would you pay for the forever version? $30?
You don't need to ask a hypothetical, the market has an answer.
To the extent your reply is "but that's not exactly what my question is", my point is that the market is already pricing all sorts of situations and the market would have no problem pricing just one more possibility into the already complicated market. Including "piracy", and people like me who are treating the vast majority of DVDs and BluRays as just a delivery mechanism for streams rather than "discs".
I'll pirate it off of Usenet or Torrents.
I get a strictly better experience if I pirate. Whereas I'm treated like a criminal and sold a much worse experience if I pay.
So, fuck paying. I'm not going to pay for abuse.
* obviously I mean movies/TV/etc. and the like where you have to pay money (as in the article)
Why should it be variable, if we talk about digital media? Storage and content streaming is cheaper than embracing a whole logistic (producing DVDs/BlueRays, packaging, shipping).
But here we are again: if you buy something digital, you just pay for a "usage license", you don't own anything at all. After all these years or decades, I am still surprised that people expect to own digital content, forever
Not necessarily. What if the store didn't have to do that?
That's fair so long as it was made clear at the time of purchase that you aren't buying the song, and that you're only renting it for a while. If they didn't put a clear explanation that you might lose access on the page when you clicked buy, and not buried deep in a 50 page EULA, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that Apple can afford to keep a 5MB file available for streaming forever, or until Apple closes down its streaming services.
It could even incentivize actors to consider other options, like selling access to download the files themselves
But like so many other comments here state: it's very much a known fact that 'buying' something like this is just renting it for a short time period. We must keep fighting for them to actually state this in bold text before you pay them.
Well, that's how it's sold. The buttons say something like "Rent"/"Buy" not "Short Term Rental"/"Indeterminate Term Rental".
To be an internet consumer you have to have some level of confidence in the good faith of the seller, including that the basic description of what's being sold is accurate. Otherwise, you wouldn't consider sending your money at all. Probably most people see "Sony" and trust that brand not to scam them.
But so as much anymore.
BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc.
Why should I pay to be treated as a criminal, when pirating is better in every way and costs nothing?
There is no option of "Pay for digital copy of show that permits format/time shifting and backup for as long as I want, with no DRM". Like GOG. Doesn't exist in the pay realm.
I have a cool 16 DVD/Bluray ripping rig. Even have scripts that convert ripped images into MKV's with all audio and subtitles, art, etc. Uploads into my Jellyfin.
And yes, I do buy VHS, DVDs, and Blurays. I have probably 3000 movies in physical format, and 10000 audio CDs. I also rip old VHS, which you usually cant find any torrents of. Again, I specialize in rare stuff you cant buy retail or find.
There's also illegal shows, like the old WKRP in Cincinnati. They licensed for TV only multiple songs. Pink Floyd and other artists refuse to license now. Nobody can legally sell them, even if you have the money. Piracy is the only way for the complete show.
There's also a lot more shows that languished in licening hell for decades, or theyre still unobtainable at any price. Some you can get redacted versions, but the originals are illegal no matter what. And as an (well, illegal, but I DGAF) archivist, having shows intentionally lost due to pervasive greed is just... more wrong.
The Wonder Years - finally published in 2021, LOTS of cuts made
China Beach - published in 2013 after clearing hundreds of songs. 17 segments were cut due to licensing fuckery
Northern Exposure - multiple songs redacted on republishing
Pee-wee's Playhouse - multiple songs redacted on republishing
Beavis and Butt-Head - DVD was a hackjob with dozens of songs changed/parodied.
Cold Case - too much licensed content, cant republish
Third Watch - too much licensed content, cant republish
The Drew Carey Show - massive music rights issues, cant republish
Malcolm in the Middle - massive music rights issues, cant republish
Little Monsters (1989) - massive music rights issues, cant republish
Heavy Metal (1981) - tons of rights issues, cant republish
Kids Incorporated / Class of 1999 2 - tons of rights issues, cant republish
Once you're into not-currently-selling stuff, as in some original cuts for example, piracy is the only way possible and is in every way better on top of that. It works. And it does not preclude you from paying original creators. Want to send some btc to someone? Want to help with a road trip? Want to help shooting the next season of whatever? Want to fund it outright? No problem.
I so m glad I just got those 90s originals
In most parts of the world it’s not illegal. That’s a seriously draconian law.
And then they wonder why so many advocate for just skipping the "purchase" step when the end result is legally the same.
Wait what? How? How is that possibly legal?
In any other case: use MakeMKV
Which is the same constraint as pretty much any other physical item one might purchase. "reasonably a forever" is a reasonable description.
I very rarely re-watch movies within a few months. So if I buy one, I want to know that I can watch it again in one, 10 or 30 years (if the format can still be played). Which is not guaranteed even with blu-rays mostly thanks to DRM. But what I'd be buying is not having to think about any deadlines.
If I'm okay with a deadline, I might as well rent the movie for a weekend, in which case I expect it to be less than $12.
I didn't buy any of the show, but that's the core here. Sony lied.
I definitely consider it fraud, but i am a normal consumer.
18 months later the entire library became DRM-free iTunes Plus quality and you could upgrade existing songs you had already purchased or that you had in your library via iTunes Match.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-t...
Meanwhile the pirates are laughing their arse off...
Type in the name of any media and you can have it in less than 5min with none of the silly DRM restrictions. All you need is the know how.
Until they make it that easy and stop trying to screw over the consumer. They will lose to piracy.
Game of Thrones was the most pirated show on the planet. Eventually HBO realized what they had to do. They offered an HBO streaming subscription globally everywhere for a reasonable price. It bypassed 50 year old cable tv agreements, etc. People could cancel the subscription at any time. But they also had access to the full HBO catalog of shows. Although it didn't stop piracy entirely it did reduce it significantly. HBO made a large profit off the decision.
Open your eyes, figure out what people really want by analyzing what makes piracy better than the legit marketplace. Then do what HBO did and set aside your old school perspective and look at the larger untapped market. Restricting access and going after pirates does not increase your market share. But catering to what people want will open up millions in sales. If you just make it crazy easy and consumer friendly without overcharging.
I think something similar applies to digital media - you don't truly own anything that's not stored in bits on a hard drive that you can pick up and put in your pocket.
Plus, when "renting" a movie costs $3.99, and "buying" it costs $5.99, there's not a particular reason to not click the "purchase" button.
I only buy through Amazon Videos, with the logic being Amazon is going to be around awhile.
Sony will be around a while too, but as you've just seen here, it's not about how healthy the company hosting the video files is.
Amazon has spent more money on prime video that Sony has on the entirety of PlayStation. Videos sold on the PlayStation store are a bullet point in a PowerPoint of Sony's finances.
You're forgetting there's a slice of people who want to "own" a movie library but don't have the technical acumen to rip and/or (more importantly) host (consider that you'd have to stand up a Jellyfin server and have a good amount of HDD space -- I personally have 50TB).
Again, it's not _that_ hard in general but daunting enough and with high enough startup costs to dissuade a lot of people.
Licensing issues like Sony's aside, the studios did MoviesAnywhere right. I can buy the disc (often used) and redeem the code, or buy digitally, and download/stream everywhere that matters to me and my family.
Streaming is so easy, don't need to find a disk. Load it, watch all the ads and warnings.
People are willing to give up everything for not having to wait a couple days to watch a movie.
You answered your own question very efficiently.
I buy or rent media from online services occassionaly. Much content I would like to watch isn't on subscription platforms, or is sometimes on streaming platforms I don't want to use. Some content isn't available to rent, and some content I feel like I'm likely to watch more than once. I prefer to buy discs, but some discs are difficult to obtain and sometimes I don't want to wait. When the buy price isn't much more than the rent price, I consider it. Or if I have amazon credits to use.
Digital movies are convenient, that’s why we like them. You are right. Why wouldn’t we like the _most_ convenient form of them?
DVDs and Blu-rays I purchased from the same era required a) advance planning and b) care. To the second point, most of the physical media is now destroyed (scratched, stepped on, lost, or just degraded), but I still have access to the copy of Cars I bought almost 20 years ago from Apple.
Of course I may then pirate it afterwards so I can keep a backup of my purchased movie.
I'm surprised this is even legal without doing a refund or transferring the digital rights to an alternative service.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/ctx3wx/sony_styl...
However, 1) when attaching property, you generally need to do a sheriff's auction.
2) You better damn well be sure the property belongs to the correct corporate entity, eg SCEA, inc. and not Sony, inc., Sony of America,Inc., etc. - otherwise you've just committed a wrongful garnishment and now Sony can sue you for punitives.
As an example why buy games from Steam when I can get them on gog.com DRM free and make them portable (without a setup or installation step on future machines)? So, I run my own Steam Store/Library like experience on a home server using Game Vault.
I use JellyFin for video. It works for music files, but I don't really like it for audio. So, I wrote my own music app that works in the browser/phone securely across the internet from my own server.
This is so much better than paying for subscriptions..
I've spent WAY MORE on my hardware and setup in time, money, and DVDs than I ever would have for streaming services, but I know if it goes down, it's on me.
If hardware ever cheaper I will also run an instance of Project Nomad:
"Buying" a streaming movie means that you enter into an agreement with an online service that promises to make your experience the rough equivalent of physical ownership. But to do that they have to solve a pile of problems, and solve those forever for as long as your purchase is valid.
Realistically, Sony will have service outages, they will have contract disputes, they may have data loss, security incidents, etc., all of which can make your "bought" content unavailable either temporarily or permanently. The real question is what type of agreement Sony had with StudioCanal.
None of this would ever affect your DVD. So the word "buying" wrt a streaming movie is easy to understand, but a bit misleading in practice. It's clear what Sony is signing up to provide; it's just hard to see how they can provide that consistently over the time period involved.
The RIAA, MPAA, and entire industries were vehemently opposed to digital media (and recording in general) and fought digital distribution every step of the way, tooth and nail, until all the DRM and gatekeeping was in place.
Perhaps we were both on the wrong side of history?
Otherwise Sony would have refunded these Studio Canal purchases to maintain the trustworthiness of their store
Hiding behind hidden T&C should just straight up not be allowed. Imagine if you go to a store and any item you wanted to buy you'd have to read 20 pages on a book next to the item before you'd be able to put it in your cart, else the product producer may just at some time in the future barge into your house and destroy the item.
Would I at least refund you for stealing back that thing you cherish and have possibly watched with your family and kids many times? Absolutely. Wouldn't be able to sleep otherwise.
But I guess that's the morality speaking, and we must kill it violently for marginal profits.
If you don't want to pay for streaming own up to it, buy it on physical or steal it (make an illegitimate copy). But don't pretend you would pay for it if it was delivered in a different agreement.
Do you expect to keep driving a rented car forever? Even if the car is only available through rent?
TBH I'd be a lot happier if they just called in "renting" instead of "buying" the movie. If you don't get to own it, why do they get to refer to it as "buying"?
If it was a real sale, then they could not do this remote control/deletion at a distance.
Shit I buy at Walmart can't be physically taken away from me later on. Its legally mine.
This? Its fraudulently sold as a "sale" but is really an indefinite rental with the terms of "fuck you I'll do what I please when I please".
And on top of fraud, I'd also throw in the CFAA as well, a criminal statute. Its established law that if I set a timebomb in software at $company where if I'm fired/laid off, that's criminal access. No boilerplate from some shitty clickwrap can excuse criminal law.
Time to start jailing Sony execs and the like.
Thank you, PlayStation Store"
Don't defend theft/fraud based for billion dollar corporations. It's not a good look.