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.
A friend and I were talking about this. What would you pay for it?
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?
I feel like you're kind of making this more complicated than it actually is, either because you're overcomplicating it or because you're trying to tee up some rhetorical point, but the answer to your question is really quite simple and objective: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=movie&rh=p_n_format_browse-bin%3A...
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".
Depends on what those $12 "buy" me. In Sony's case, "buying" meant "renting until Sony's license expires", which they could have displayed on the product page.
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.
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
> I am still surprised that people expect to own digital content, forever
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.
There's a big difference between owning content, and having access to download content.
The problem here is that you were not buying a version you could download and store on your system, and just play it back with whatever.
So you 'bought' it while it was still under their control etc.
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.
Is it radical to (through regulation) force part of the sales figure to go towards a trust that pays for CDN hosting+some simple server for authenticating ownership in the case of the service shutting down?
It could even incentivize actors to consider other options, like selling access to download the files themselves
With digital you're hoping the 'store' keeps it in storage for you in perpetuity so you can redownload/stream it. If you buy a DVD and lose it you can't go back for another free copy. There's definitely an issue that the original license should allow you to always download and backup your copy DRM free so you will always have access but most people aren't going to do that. I bought lots of music/video content from iTunes over the years and rarely back it up. The fact I can just stream it/redownload it from them is very useful but it's also unreasonable for me to expect that Apple should be hosting my 99¢ purchase for the rest of time.
That's not a great example, because once I pay Apple I can copy the song to my local device and keep it myself. I would hope Apple would keep it on their servers ready for me for the rest of my life, but if I don't I can still access my purchases.
it's also unreasonable for me to expect that Apple should be hosting my 99¢ purchase for the rest of time
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.
You'd pay for it what you paid for it. Did the "Buy" button specify that you were buying the movie or did it say you were simply leasing the film and that it can be removed at any time due to licensing agreement over which you (as the buyer) had no control over?
I think it should specifically say for how long you are renting it. They knew already when the contract would expire, why renting the movie didn't say "rent for 7 years" (or whatever the timeframe was)
That would constitute fraud IMHO. You cannot simply make it appear as though customers bought something, when the verb buy has a very specific and crystal-clear meaning.
Do you mean what i am suggesting is fraud? Because when Sony entered the agreement for the movies, you can definitely bet they knew how long it was going to last, and the button I am confident it said "buy" (i don't have a PlayStation).
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.
I know it's not the point you're making but I would enjoy a post-apocalyptic post-AI movie where they pass on the lesson of the dangers of AI through an oral recounting or stage production of T2.
Ok, how long do you have to rip & copy the content as you desire? It is still reasonably a forever version. Before you bring up laws around keys, first consider that jaywalking in front of your house is illegal too. Again, it is reasonably a forever version.
Crossing the street in a residential neighborhood is legal in almost all of the world and increasingly legal in the US as well. Many major cities started with non-enforcement and some are rolling back jaywalking laws entirely.
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.
It seems like you're just adding more and more qualifiers until you can finally justify piracy to yourself. You can reasonably do what you want if you buy the disc. There's a good chance that's how the people you're downloading from did it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You can't rip it, or even make backups in the US (you can in most, if not all, of Europe; dunno about the rest of the world). It's illegal, and constitutes piracy.
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
I'd like to add Daria to that list. Most of the music has rights issuses and the DVD release has had it all replaced with generic 90s music-like filler.
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.
A mistake suggests that it's accidental and they didn't mean it. To the extent a corporation can know things, they knew exactly how this was set up. This is fraud.
The industry has yet to adapt from physical media to digital media consisting of binary ones and zeros that costs next to nothing to copy and file transfer. Despite saving a fortune in manufacturing, printing, distribution, shipping. They still try to milk every penny.
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 don't consider anything digital as being bought unless I own it free and clear, unencumbered of any encryption. Not interested in anyone's "digital locker" or storage scheme. I have 20 years of music bought digitally through iTunes and Amazon. I can still play them to this day without needing to check-in with a licensing server. That is ownership. That is why I don't buy encrypted movies.
I think Heinlein said, "You do not truly own anything that you can't carry in both arms at a dead run."
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.
Why do people buy movies digitally anyway? I can understand digital movies (they are convenient) but renting or streaming seems far more reasonable. If you truly want to own a movie as I suspect people who buy them digitally do, the only way to ensure that is to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray and rip (or redeem the digital code version that often comes with modern releases, though those tend to have DRM). Even then, why do people buy from the playstation store? I could maybe understand that when the Vita was still around, but nowadays it seems like an odd choice
Because I’m actually not going to lose much sleep if Apple revoke my license for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and given I’ve had digital purchases from them since [checks notes] literally two decades ago and not one of them has to my knowledge been revoked I’m reasonably comfortable that they’ll probably stick around for as long as I do, after which I’m going to rapidly cease caring about my collection of films and TV.
Yes, it doesn't sound like a wise decision given what we know about the usual practices of those services. But the average consumer is not as savvy as us HN users.
I would not blame someone for expecting to own permanent access to the content if they purchase it. This only happens because big Sony and such are not held accountable of their actions, they are the one to blame.
For me it's usually just a cost thing. Some movies I just know I'm going to watch multiple times, certain ones even annually. Clicking buy generally already makes sense if you're going to watch it twice. Wouldn't buy it from the PS store though, it seems like such a niche outside their core business that I'd be worried they would pull exactly what they pulled here.
Kids and convenience. 99% of the movies I’ve bought from iTunes are kids movies. Some of them were watched over and over and over.
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.
Right, but I was referring to the concept of watching a movie digitally in general, whether that be streaming, renting, buying, torrenting, ripping, whatever. My question is why do people buy movies digitally as opposed to any of those other options
It's hard to find newer movies on laserdisc, vhs, or home film projection, so analog is out.
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.
> Why do people buy movies digitally anyway? I can understand digital movies (they are convenient) but renting or streaming seems far more reasonable. If you truly want to own a movie as I suspect people who buy them digitally do, the only way to ensure that is to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray and rip
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.
And time. I have archived some of my collection, but it does take a lot of time to rip the disks, test that they worked correctly. Then years later find out you did something wrong and there is no sound anymore, or you just got stereo and the surround mix is broken.
Streaming is so easy, don't need to find a disk. Load it, watch all the ads and warnings.
I have the technical acumen and money, but zero desire or time to spend ripping discs. It's far too easy to raid the "five dollar bin" at MoviesAnywhere (like I used to do at Wal-Mart and Best Buy).
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.
Owning a shelf and a blueray player requires zero "Technical acumen" and gets you far cheaper media than any of the online services, but requires you to plan at least a couple days ahead of time. That's the crux.
People are willing to give up everything for not having to wait a couple days to watch a movie.
If you're going to watch it multiple times it's cheaper to buy than rent (especially if you see it on offer). With streaming you're relying that at least one of the providers has what you want and then you have to pay for a month to watch it if you're not already subscribed. I've also found streaming services are way more likely to censor older content.
Why do you guys "buy" movies? Like, you plan to watch the movie many, many times in the future? How many times do you watch a movie? Just curious, because I've never had a desire to watch a movie more than once.
Its because of things like this that I self host all my media.
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..
It's really nice - and it's not really the cost ... it's the avoidance of the rugpull.
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.
Buying a physical DVD means you own the item and have it in your hands.
"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.
Consumers went wild over digital media distribution, because of its quality, its lossless copying, and the ease of reproduction and transmission. When CDs and DVDs appeared on the scene, I never dreamed that they would only be a temporary stepping-stone to intangible cloud downloads. But Napster happened.
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?
Selling something to customers without having the rights to it yourself is very clearly illegal. I wish some government agency had the guts to prosecute this.
Presumably at the time of sale they had rights to it. They lost it later, but should have at least had secured rights to people who bought the damn thing.
You don't always know that, you can have an open ended license with an option to get it revoked in the future with some notice period. I'd be pretty sure that PlayStation also had that in their terms and covered themselves legally for that option.
> I'd be pretty sure that PlayStation also had that in their terms and covered themselves legally for that option.
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.
I'm confused why everyone here seems to accept that this just happens when you buy digital-only content. What if Sony deleted previously bought games? Or Valve? I don't think people would just shrug it off and say "you should always buy physical".
I'm surprised this is even legal without doing a refund or transferring the digital rights to an alternative service.
between this and their mucking around with game studios (no new PC versions of marquee titles like ghost of yotei etc, unceremoniously shutting down bungie and laying off artists/game devs prior to vestment etc), Playstation management is a disaster at the moment
I have to wonder what small claims court judges would think of it. Get a few hundred cases filed across the US and the travel expense for Sony could be significant.
You can. It's called a levy or a writ of attachment depending on the jurisdiction. you can also do a till levy where you send the sheriff to go clean out their cash register.
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.
I hate this phrase, it is not a good analog for the situation and it slanders piracy. I understand the idea behind it and I hate the streaming/renting/digital purchase model as much as the next guy.
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?
> 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.
> due to our content licensing agreements
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.
A friend and I were talking about this. What would you pay for it?
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?
I feel like you're kind of making this more complicated than it actually is, either because you're overcomplicating it or because you're trying to tee up some rhetorical point, but the answer to your question is really quite simple and objective: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=movie&rh=p_n_format_browse-bin%3A...
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".
Depends on what those $12 "buy" me. In Sony's case, "buying" meant "renting until Sony's license expires", which they could have displayed on the product page.
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.
My problem is that they told me *I* was buying a license. I didn't know I was actually buying a sublicense that was dependent upon Sony's.
I didn't buy any of the show, but that's the core here. Sony lied.
If I buy a DVD, it costs a fixed price.
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
> I am still surprised that people expect to own digital content, forever
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.
There's a big difference between owning content, and having access to download content. The problem here is that you were not buying a version you could download and store on your system, and just play it back with whatever. So you 'bought' it while it was still under their control etc.
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.
Is it radical to (through regulation) force part of the sales figure to go towards a trust that pays for CDN hosting+some simple server for authenticating ownership in the case of the service shutting down?
It could even incentivize actors to consider other options, like selling access to download the files themselves
With digital you're hoping the 'store' keeps it in storage for you in perpetuity so you can redownload/stream it. If you buy a DVD and lose it you can't go back for another free copy. There's definitely an issue that the original license should allow you to always download and backup your copy DRM free so you will always have access but most people aren't going to do that. I bought lots of music/video content from iTunes over the years and rarely back it up. The fact I can just stream it/redownload it from them is very useful but it's also unreasonable for me to expect that Apple should be hosting my 99¢ purchase for the rest of time.
That's not a great example, because once I pay Apple I can copy the song to my local device and keep it myself. I would hope Apple would keep it on their servers ready for me for the rest of my life, but if I don't I can still access my purchases.
it's also unreasonable for me to expect that Apple should be hosting my 99¢ purchase for the rest of time
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.
> With digital you're hoping the 'store' keeps it in storage for you in perpetuity so you can redownload/stream it.
Not necessarily. What if the store didn't have to do that?
You'd pay for it what you paid for it. Did the "Buy" button specify that you were buying the movie or did it say you were simply leasing the film and that it can be removed at any time due to licensing agreement over which you (as the buyer) had no control over?
I think it should specifically say for how long you are renting it. They knew already when the contract would expire, why renting the movie didn't say "rent for 7 years" (or whatever the timeframe was)
That would constitute fraud IMHO. You cannot simply make it appear as though customers bought something, when the verb buy has a very specific and crystal-clear meaning.
Do you mean what i am suggesting is fraud? Because when Sony entered the agreement for the movies, you can definitely bet they knew how long it was going to last, and the button I am confident it said "buy" (i don't have a PlayStation).
I definitely consider it fraud, but i am a normal consumer.
$1.29 - https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/05/30Apple-Launches-iTun...
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...
On a similar scale, if I am paying 35% more for the plus on music, I expect the same for movies around $15 or up to $18.
Terminator 2 is currently $8 for a bluray on amazon. $10 for a DVD. This is reasonably a forever version.
DVD perhaps yes, until the disc degrades.
BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc.
DVD perhaps yes, until the disc degrades.
Which is the same constraint as pretty much any other physical item one might purchase. "reasonably a forever" is a reasonable description.
I know it's not the point you're making but I would enjoy a post-apocalyptic post-AI movie where they pass on the lesson of the dangers of AI through an oral recounting or stage production of T2.
Ok, how long do you have to rip & copy the content as you desire? It is still reasonably a forever version. Before you bring up laws around keys, first consider that jaywalking in front of your house is illegal too. Again, it is reasonably a forever version.
A rip & copy is a breach of the DMCA (because it involves circumvention of DRM, among other things) in the US, which makes it software piracy.
And then they wonder why so many advocate for just skipping the "purchase" step when the end result is legally the same.
jaywalking in front of your house is illegal
In most parts of the world it’s not illegal. That’s a seriously draconian law.
Crossing the street in a residential neighborhood is legal in almost all of the world and increasingly legal in the US as well. Many major cities started with non-enforcement and some are rolling back jaywalking laws entirely.
Why even bother with all those hoops. Just download.
Oh, I was adding a pertinent point of discussion in a discussion board. It is fun. I suggest you try it.
Snarky shit aside...
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.
It seems like you're just adding more and more qualifiers until you can finally justify piracy to yourself. You can reasonably do what you want if you buy the disc. There's a good chance that's how the people you're downloading from did it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You can't rip it, or even make backups in the US (you can in most, if not all, of Europe; dunno about the rest of the world). It's illegal, and constitutes piracy.
Yeah thats also how I do it.
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
I'd like to add Daria to that list. Most of the music has rights issuses and the DVD release has had it all replaced with generic 90s music-like filler.
This.
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.
> BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc
Wait what? How? How is that possibly legal?
Key revocation applies to releases published after the revocation date. Old media should continue playing with a compromised device key.
That wasn't what was implied then. If old media continues playing then it's still "forever".
This was planned for DVDs too, but they failed miserably.
In any other case: use MakeMKV
I would pay what I used to pay for DVDs.
I would pay zero. I would just use torrents.
Right now, I won't pay a fucking cent.
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.
A mistake suggests that it's accidental and they didn't mean it. To the extent a corporation can know things, they knew exactly how this was set up. This is fraud.
They could still refund all those purchases and come out good here, but we all know they won't.
The industry has yet to adapt from physical media to digital media consisting of binary ones and zeros that costs next to nothing to copy and file transfer. Despite saving a fortune in manufacturing, printing, distribution, shipping. They still try to milk every penny.
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 don't consider anything digital as being bought unless I own it free and clear, unencumbered of any encryption. Not interested in anyone's "digital locker" or storage scheme. I have 20 years of music bought digitally through iTunes and Amazon. I can still play them to this day without needing to check-in with a licensing server. That is ownership. That is why I don't buy encrypted movies.
I think Heinlein said, "You do not truly own anything that you can't carry in both arms at a dead run."
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.
Discussion: "PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346 26-jun-2026 208 comments
I suppose they started with 451 and decided it was too on-the-nose.
Why do people buy movies digitally anyway? I can understand digital movies (they are convenient) but renting or streaming seems far more reasonable. If you truly want to own a movie as I suspect people who buy them digitally do, the only way to ensure that is to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray and rip (or redeem the digital code version that often comes with modern releases, though those tend to have DRM). Even then, why do people buy from the playstation store? I could maybe understand that when the Vita was still around, but nowadays it seems like an odd choice
I "bought" a few digital kids movies because kids want to watch them over and over and I didn't want to deal with handling physical media.
17,059,798,573 views for Baby Shark and climbing ...
Convenience is 99% of the answer.
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 wish more platforms would let you rent for $4, and then show you an "upgrade to buy for $3" or similar for a week afterwards.
Why would they? They make more money if you pay the $7 up front.
Sure, but if it's buy now $6, or rent $4, upgrade to buy $3, they make a bit more the other way.
Depends on your habits. I don't re-watch most of the movie I see.
Because I’m actually not going to lose much sleep if Apple revoke my license for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and given I’ve had digital purchases from them since [checks notes] literally two decades ago and not one of them has to my knowledge been revoked I’m reasonably comfortable that they’ll probably stick around for as long as I do, after which I’m going to rapidly cease caring about my collection of films and TV.
Yes, it doesn't sound like a wise decision given what we know about the usual practices of those services. But the average consumer is not as savvy as us HN users. I would not blame someone for expecting to own permanent access to the content if they purchase it. This only happens because big Sony and such are not held accountable of their actions, they are the one to blame.
For me it's usually just a cost thing. Some movies I just know I'm going to watch multiple times, certain ones even annually. Clicking buy generally already makes sense if you're going to watch it twice. Wouldn't buy it from the PS store though, it seems like such a niche outside their core business that I'd be worried they would pull exactly what they pulled here.
I don't own any way to play physical disc media anymore, and for the handful of movies I watch multiple times (so far 2), it made sense to buy them.
I only buy through Amazon Videos, with the logic being Amazon is going to be around awhile.
> 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.
Kids and convenience. 99% of the movies I’ve bought from iTunes are kids movies. Some of them were watched over and over and over.
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.
>Why do people buy movies digitally anyway? I can understand digital movies (they are convenient)
You answered your own question very efficiently.
Right, but I was referring to the concept of watching a movie digitally in general, whether that be streaming, renting, buying, torrenting, ripping, whatever. My question is why do people buy movies digitally as opposed to any of those other options
It's hard to find newer movies on laserdisc, vhs, or home film projection, so analog is out.
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.
> Why do people buy movies digitally anyway? I can understand digital movies (they are convenient) but renting or streaming seems far more reasonable. If you truly want to own a movie as I suspect people who buy them digitally do, the only way to ensure that is to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray and rip
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.
And time. I have archived some of my collection, but it does take a lot of time to rip the disks, test that they worked correctly. Then years later find out you did something wrong and there is no sound anymore, or you just got stereo and the surround mix is broken.
Streaming is so easy, don't need to find a disk. Load it, watch all the ads and warnings.
I have the technical acumen and money, but zero desire or time to spend ripping discs. It's far too easy to raid the "five dollar bin" at MoviesAnywhere (like I used to do at Wal-Mart and Best Buy).
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.
Owning a shelf and a blueray player requires zero "Technical acumen" and gets you far cheaper media than any of the online services, but requires you to plan at least a couple days ahead of time. That's the crux.
People are willing to give up everything for not having to wait a couple days to watch a movie.
If you're going to watch it multiple times it's cheaper to buy than rent (especially if you see it on offer). With streaming you're relying that at least one of the providers has what you want and then you have to pay for a month to watch it if you're not already subscribed. I've also found streaming services are way more likely to censor older content.
Why do you guys "buy" movies? Like, you plan to watch the movie many, many times in the future? How many times do you watch a movie? Just curious, because I've never had a desire to watch a movie more than once.
Either you have a perfect memory, or you’ve never been touched or moved sufficiently by a movie or show.
Its because of things like this that I self host all my media.
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..
It's really nice - and it's not really the cost ... it's the avoidance of the rugpull.
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.
Absolutely. If there is a fiber cut in my driveway I still have my home network running just the same.
If hardware ever cheaper I will also run an instance of Project Nomad:
https://www.projectnomad.us/
If you don’t need the local LLM feature that I don’t see why that shouldn’t just run on a Raspberry Pi 4+.
I deleted my Steam account recently after I realized I hadn't logged in for 5 years. I just can't tolerate a store also being a launcher middleman.
Steam is probably the best example of how you can be a middleman and a store. I’ve never felt wronged by them unlike Sony and Discovery.
Buying a physical DVD means you own the item and have it in your hands.
"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.
Consumers went wild over digital media distribution, because of its quality, its lossless copying, and the ease of reproduction and transmission. When CDs and DVDs appeared on the scene, I never dreamed that they would only be a temporary stepping-stone to intangible cloud downloads. But Napster happened.
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?
Selling something to customers without having the rights to it yourself is very clearly illegal. I wish some government agency had the guts to prosecute this.
Presumably at the time of sale they had rights to it. They lost it later, but should have at least had secured rights to people who bought the damn thing.
If the contract has an end date then there’s no reason not to mention it during the sale.
You don't always know that, you can have an open ended license with an option to get it revoked in the future with some notice period. I'd be pretty sure that PlayStation also had that in their terms and covered themselves legally for that option.
> I'd be pretty sure that PlayStation also had that in their terms and covered themselves legally for that option.
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.
It's not very helpful if the contract gets renewed 99.9% of the time, but in this case it didn't happen to.
Sounds like the PlayStation Store is planning to stop selling and renting any movies?
Otherwise Sony would have refunded these Studio Canal purchases to maintain the trustworthiness of their store
I'm confused why everyone here seems to accept that this just happens when you buy digital-only content. What if Sony deleted previously bought games? Or Valve? I don't think people would just shrug it off and say "you should always buy physical".
I'm surprised this is even legal without doing a refund or transferring the digital rights to an alternative service.
can‘t people receive any kind of forewarning and prepare themselves? it‘s not like they will try to download a chariot or something
if buy isn't owning, piracy isn't theft.
between this and their mucking around with game studios (no new PC versions of marquee titles like ghost of yotei etc, unceremoniously shutting down bungie and laying off artists/game devs prior to vestment etc), Playstation management is a disaster at the moment
I have to wonder what small claims court judges would think of it. Get a few hundred cases filed across the US and the travel expense for Sony could be significant.
Why would Sony bother to show up? 1000 cases x $19.99/movie = $20,000.
People also forget that the burden of collection is on you. Good luck chasing Sony for that $20 even if the court has ruled in your favor.
You're saying I can't just turn up to the nearest Sony store with a sheriff's deputy and take some shit?
You can. It's called a levy or a writ of attachment depending on the jurisdiction. you can also do a till levy where you send the sheriff to go clean out their cash register.
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.
Sony doesn't operate their own brick & mortar stores
I thought they did for some reason.
There were Sony stores a long time ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/ctx3wx/sony_styl...
Does Sony have stores?
Hmm I guess not. Nearest corporate office then.
Does anyone have a link to the relevant terms of service from the sony store?
I'm slowly getting into buying physical media of my favourite tv shows and movies.
"I buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing."
I hate this phrase, it is not a good analog for the situation and it slanders piracy. I understand the idea behind it and I hate the streaming/renting/digital purchase model as much as the next guy.
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?
> 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"?
"Purchased".
"Enshittification complete.
Thank you, PlayStation Store"
Man, instead of "Thank you" they should've said "Fuck you"
And this smells of fraud.
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.
silk road... torrent...
I get the latter, but were you also looking to buy some drugs?
You expect them to sit through "Big Ass Spider!" sober?
I think they meant "Studio Canal Movies rented on PlayStation Store removed without refund because they are rented"
I think it would be reasonable for the typical person to believe that when you click a button labeled "buy", you are buying the item, not renting it.
Don't defend theft/fraud based for billion dollar corporations. It's not a good look.