5 ms·

It’s not stealing, it’s in the contract. That’s why I only Torrent

wongarsu 4y ago
Sure, they always argue that you are only "renting" them for a one-time-fee, and that the rent agreement could end at any time for any reason. But them using the word "purchased" in this very announcement (not a mistranslation btw) gives weight to the argument that this is intentional deception of the customer. An even easier case in Germany, where courts acknowledge that customers don't read the terms of service, so any "surprising" terms hidden in the TOS aren't legally binding.
- heartbreak 4y ago
  I think it’s specifically purchasing a license to view the content.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    Is the "content" described as "Movie Title" or "License to view Movie Title for a limited time arbitrarily determined by us"?
gwd 4y ago
Anything that has the word "purchase" in it should be legally mandated that there be a way for users to access it indefinitely: in this case, perhaps making it possible to download with some sort of offline DRM. (You can do this, say, with Audible books that you buy.) Anything which is cloud-only and may disappear at any time should be labelled something else, like "lease".
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  It depends if purchase is defined in the countrys laws. Otherwise it can be defined as anything within the purchase contract.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    you are responding to prescriptivism with descriptivism
    - dylan604 4y ago
      As long as they didn't use the word in the definition of the word.
- wowokay 4y ago
  Yeah good point, it seems like something that should have rolled into all those privacy laws.
- hiccuphippo 4y ago
  They'll just bury somewhere in the contract that you are purchasing the limited access to the good, not purchasing the good itself.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    It's not they'll like they will do it. This is what they have done.
  - account42 4y ago
    That is what they do but should not be what they can get away with.
ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
Exactly. These scumbags are not to be trusted. Ever.
rmbyrro 4y ago
Not so fast. Every contract must be balanced, otherwise it can be challenged (and likely overruled) in courts. If they have the right to terminate your license and withdraw access to the content, you should also have the right to terminate the contract and withdraw your money. It cannot work just for one side without any practical reason.
- pfisch 4y ago
  This is not true. The contract just needs to have consideration. It doesn't have to be "fair" in your opinion.
  - ectopod 4y ago
    Some countries recognise the power imbalance in consumer contracts and prohibit unfair terms. For example: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-contract-terms-cma37 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-contract-t...
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    I can't say for where you live, but it is true where I live. Might not be true in Japan, but Sony is doing business worldwide, they have to follow each country's legal principles.

Sure, they always argue that you are only "renting" them for a one-time-fee, and that the rent agreement could end at any time for any reason. But them using the word "purchased" in this very announcement (not a mistranslation btw) gives weight to the argument that this is intentional deception of the customer. An even easier case in Germany, where courts acknowledge that customers don't read the terms of service, so any "surprising" terms hidden in the TOS aren't legally binding.

heartbreak 4y ago
I think it’s specifically purchasing a license to view the content.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  Is the "content" described as "Movie Title" or "License to view Movie Title for a limited time arbitrarily determined by us"?

gwd 4y ago

Anything that has the word "purchase" in it should be legally mandated that there be a way for users to access it indefinitely: in this case, perhaps making it possible to download with some sort of offline DRM. (You can do this, say, with Audible books that you buy.) Anything which is cloud-only and may disappear at any time should be labelled something else, like "lease".

cloutchaser 4y ago
It depends if purchase is defined in the countrys laws. Otherwise it can be defined as anything within the purchase contract.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  you are responding to prescriptivism with descriptivism
  - dylan604 4y ago
    As long as they didn't use the word in the definition of the word.
wowokay 4y ago
Yeah good point, it seems like something that should have rolled into all those privacy laws.
hiccuphippo 4y ago
They'll just bury somewhere in the contract that you are purchasing the limited access to the good, not purchasing the good itself.
- dylan604 4y ago
  It's not they'll like they will do it. This is what they have done.
- account42 4y ago
  That is what they do but should not be what they can get away with.

ospzfmbbzr 4y ago

Exactly. These scumbags are not to be trusted. Ever.

rmbyrro 4y ago

Not so fast. Every contract must be balanced, otherwise it can be challenged (and likely overruled) in courts. If they have the right to terminate your license and withdraw access to the content, you should also have the right to terminate the contract and withdraw your money. It cannot work just for one side without any practical reason.

pfisch 4y ago
This is not true. The contract just needs to have consideration. It doesn't have to be "fair" in your opinion.
- ectopod 4y ago
  Some countries recognise the power imbalance in consumer contracts and prohibit unfair terms. For example: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-contract-terms-cma37 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-contract-t...
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  I can't say for where you live, but it is true where I live. Might not be true in Japan, but Sony is doing business worldwide, they have to follow each country's legal principles.