5 ms·

> you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed Content you purchased. Their wording.

> you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed Content you purchased. Their wording. Not content you rented, not license you paid for. They are effectively stealing the content you purchased.

nightfly 3y ago
If it lives on their servers you never really owned it.
- hanniabu 3y ago
  Then they should let you download it
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    That's my policy, one way or another I'm downloading a copy for safekeeping.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Then selling it was fraud, surely. I'm not a lawyer, but I've never understood how these online storefronts haven't been sued out of existence for claiming that you can "buy" something when they clearly mean something more akin to "leasing access to it until they feel like it".
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
    Wake me up when Sony executives serve hard time for federal fraud charges. I’m afraid there is no justice for citizens victimized by the ownership class.
    - bozhark 3y ago
      We could all band together and buy Sony out of it’s self
      - smegsicle 3y ago
        dibs on ceo
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      It’s almost always only financial and rarely significant enough to be meaning to the company at hand, to which it often gets lowered even further on appeal more often than not
MegaDeKay 3y ago
From Louis Rossmann on YouTube: "If paying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing." (shamelessly copied from the top comment on /r/piracy on this very subject)
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  I'd add that if you paid a price similar to buying a physical copy then it's a stronger case. And most of these digital 'buy' prices have literally no discount compared to a Blu-ray, which is shameless.
  - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
    When the price is the same you're still getting the short end of the stick when you 'buy' digitally. Digital license has lower quality video and audio You cannot re-sell your digital license You have a non-zero chance that your license will get revoked
    - ender341341 3y ago
      also you commonly get a digital license too that you can register with those same digital services when you buy physical anyways (at least for movies/tv shows).
- Racing0461 3y ago
  > If paying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing. I'm stealing that (no pun intended).
- chongli 3y ago
  It’s never been about whether piracy was stealing or not. It’s about what the courts have to say on the matter. Find yourself on the wrong end of a big copyright case and your life gets ruined, regardless of what word you use to describe it.
  - civilitty 3y ago
kmstout 3y ago
> Their wording. Saved [0], for whatever it's worth. [0] https://archive.is/3qOGV https://archive.is/3qOGV
dehrmann 3y ago
You don't actually "purchase" physical media. It's still licensed. The question for digital purchases is how perpetual the license is. This is different from Spotify and Netflix where you clearly are renting it, and there's no confusion over that.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  They are plainly stating that it was purchased.
- rchaud 3y ago
  You can do whatever you want to with physical media, license be damned. Most people won't go further than making a physical copy to load on to their NAS. This is a license violation, but there won't be any enforcement because mass distribution via torrents is a much bigger threat.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    Let me know how your unlicensed movie theater goes.
  - behringer 3y ago
    There will never be enforcement because such a provision is not enforceable.
- II2II 3y ago
  Is the purchase of physical media actually license? Clearly there are restrictions to what you can do with it (duplication, public performance, and so forth), but those restrictions are defined by copyright law. The notable exception is software, but it could be argued that licenses were a product of the need to duplicate software (e.g. install it to a hard drive). That said, modern software licenses do go far beyond that. Then again, I may be misinterpreting the meaning of license. I have always views them as modifications to the rights granted by copyright law.
- Retric 3y ago
  Buying a book is just that a purchase. Copyright only applies when a copy is being made, thus no license is needed or implied. You can read it and then sell the physical book because you’re not making physical copies, but you can’t read it to a large audience because that requires a specific license. Buying a physical CD or an action figure of some copyrighted character follows that same principle, the wishes of the original publisher becomes irrelevant until copyright applies. So you can for example take family photos of your kid holding that Barbie without issue, even make copies of it and back it up to the cloud with no problem. TLDR; To say a license exists implies some additional privilege, but that’s simply not the case here.
derefr 3y ago
Devil's advocate: you can purchase a license. The law uses terms like "purchase" and "ownership" in reference to temporary/conditional delegated ownership all the time. The legalese in contracts usually looks something like "purchasing a temporary use-right over X." For a good — and centuries-old — example, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_estate is something that's "owned"... but only for a certain number of years.
- blowski 3y ago
  Perhaps the leasehold model is interesting. With the PlayStation example, they can withdraw access to the content at any time, whereas a leasehold gives you restricted ownership for a fixed period of time.
PhileasNietzche 3y ago
They're not stealing anything. People should read the legal contracts they sign or to which they otherwise agree. Streaming services typically include a clause about the right to remove content for any reason and regardless of who has purchased it. This is exactly why their courtesy notice doesn't include a word about refunds and a perfect example of the serious societal problem of people having a knee-jerk reaction to something merely because they haven't been paying attention and didn't do much (if any) research prior to venting their frustrations to the world.
- orra 3y ago
  Not sure why you're excusing mis-selling. Legal small print isn't allowed to contradict the key points and larger text, of the context of the sale.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  Lawyers and judges themselves don’t read the fine print and it would take an inordinate amount of time for people to read the fine print of every service they were offered. Nobody has time to do such things. Which is precisely why the courts tend to view misleadingly offering something for sale in the advertisement, and then adding contradictory conditions to that sale in the fine print, as just defrauding their customers. This blame the consumer mentality is impractical, unworkable, and legally wrong.

nightfly 3y ago

If it lives on their servers you never really owned it.

hanniabu 3y ago
Then they should let you download it
- EA-3167 3y ago
  That's my policy, one way or another I'm downloading a copy for safekeeping.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Then selling it was fraud, surely. I'm not a lawyer, but I've never understood how these online storefronts haven't been sued out of existence for claiming that you can "buy" something when they clearly mean something more akin to "leasing access to it until they feel like it".
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  Wake me up when Sony executives serve hard time for federal fraud charges. I’m afraid there is no justice for citizens victimized by the ownership class.
  - bozhark 3y ago
    We could all band together and buy Sony out of it’s self
    - smegsicle 3y ago
      dibs on ceo
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    It’s almost always only financial and rarely significant enough to be meaning to the company at hand, to which it often gets lowered even further on appeal more often than not

MegaDeKay 3y ago

From Louis Rossmann on YouTube: "If paying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing." (shamelessly copied from the top comment on /r/piracy on this very subject)

paulryanrogers 3y ago
I'd add that if you paid a price similar to buying a physical copy then it's a stronger case. And most of these digital 'buy' prices have literally no discount compared to a Blu-ray, which is shameless.
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  When the price is the same you're still getting the short end of the stick when you 'buy' digitally. Digital license has lower quality video and audio You cannot re-sell your digital license You have a non-zero chance that your license will get revoked
  - ender341341 3y ago
    also you commonly get a digital license too that you can register with those same digital services when you buy physical anyways (at least for movies/tv shows).
Racing0461 3y ago
> If paying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing. I'm stealing that (no pun intended).
chongli 3y ago
It’s never been about whether piracy was stealing or not. It’s about what the courts have to say on the matter. Find yourself on the wrong end of a big copyright case and your life gets ruined, regardless of what word you use to describe it.
- civilitty 3y ago

kmstout 3y ago

> Their wording. Saved [0], for whatever it's worth. [0] https://archive.is/3qOGV https://archive.is/3qOGV

dehrmann 3y ago

You don't actually "purchase" physical media. It's still licensed. The question for digital purchases is how perpetual the license is. This is different from Spotify and Netflix where you clearly are renting it, and there's no confusion over that.

lupusreal 3y ago
They are plainly stating that it was purchased.
rchaud 3y ago
You can do whatever you want to with physical media, license be damned. Most people won't go further than making a physical copy to load on to their NAS. This is a license violation, but there won't be any enforcement because mass distribution via torrents is a much bigger threat.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  Let me know how your unlicensed movie theater goes.
- behringer 3y ago
  There will never be enforcement because such a provision is not enforceable.
II2II 3y ago
Is the purchase of physical media actually license? Clearly there are restrictions to what you can do with it (duplication, public performance, and so forth), but those restrictions are defined by copyright law. The notable exception is software, but it could be argued that licenses were a product of the need to duplicate software (e.g. install it to a hard drive). That said, modern software licenses do go far beyond that. Then again, I may be misinterpreting the meaning of license. I have always views them as modifications to the rights granted by copyright law.
Retric 3y ago
Buying a book is just that a purchase. Copyright only applies when a copy is being made, thus no license is needed or implied. You can read it and then sell the physical book because you’re not making physical copies, but you can’t read it to a large audience because that requires a specific license. Buying a physical CD or an action figure of some copyrighted character follows that same principle, the wishes of the original publisher becomes irrelevant until copyright applies. So you can for example take family photos of your kid holding that Barbie without issue, even make copies of it and back it up to the cloud with no problem. TLDR; To say a license exists implies some additional privilege, but that’s simply not the case here.

derefr 3y ago

Devil's advocate: you can purchase a license. The law uses terms like "purchase" and "ownership" in reference to temporary/conditional delegated ownership all the time. The legalese in contracts usually looks something like "purchasing a temporary use-right over X." For a good — and centuries-old — example, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leasehold_estate is something that's "owned"... but only for a certain number of years.

blowski 3y ago
Perhaps the leasehold model is interesting. With the PlayStation example, they can withdraw access to the content at any time, whereas a leasehold gives you restricted ownership for a fixed period of time.

PhileasNietzche 3y ago

They're not stealing anything. People should read the legal contracts they sign or to which they otherwise agree. Streaming services typically include a clause about the right to remove content for any reason and regardless of who has purchased it. This is exactly why their courtesy notice doesn't include a word about refunds and a perfect example of the serious societal problem of people having a knee-jerk reaction to something merely because they haven't been paying attention and didn't do much (if any) research prior to venting their frustrations to the world.

orra 3y ago
Not sure why you're excusing mis-selling. Legal small print isn't allowed to contradict the key points and larger text, of the context of the sale.
faeriechangling 3y ago
Lawyers and judges themselves don’t read the fine print and it would take an inordinate amount of time for people to read the fine print of every service they were offered. Nobody has time to do such things. Which is precisely why the courts tend to view misleadingly offering something for sale in the advertisement, and then adding contradictory conditions to that sale in the fine print, as just defrauding their customers. This blame the consumer mentality is impractical, unworkable, and legally wrong.