6 ms·

> 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

> 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.

TheCondor 4mo ago
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?
- jerf 4mo ago
  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%3A2650304011%257C2650305011%257C6259461011%257C9397930011&dc&ds=v1%3AdwgsNDE3qfgq6s5PL%2FpAO7h2O02yNqZR%2Be4LEZ%2F6C8U 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".
- nekusar 4mo ago
  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.
  - anonymars 4mo ago
    Related point: try legally playing 4k content* on your PC * obviously I mean movies/TV/etc. and the like where you have to pay money (as in the article)
- madduci 4mo ago
  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
  - basisword 4mo ago
    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.
    - triceratops 4mo ago
      > 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?
    - onion2k 4mo ago
      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.
    - thesuitonym 4mo ago
- dfxm12 4mo ago
  Terminator 2 is currently $8 for a bluray on amazon. $10 for a DVD. This is reasonably a forever version.
  - dingaling 4mo ago
    DVD perhaps yes, until the disc degrades. BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc.
    - dfxm12 4mo ago
      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.
      - lstodd 4mo ago
        Why even bother with all those hoops. Just download.
        dfxm12 4mo ago
        Oh, I was adding a pertinent point of discussion in a discussion board. It is fun. I suggest you try it.
        nekusar 4mo ago
        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.
        dfxm12 4mo ago
        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)_/¯
- lstodd 4mo ago
  I would pay zero. I would just use torrents.
- ksec 4mo ago
  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.
- Netcob 4mo ago
  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.
  - burnte 4mo ago
    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.
- robinsonb5 4mo ago
  I would pay what I used to pay for DVDs.
- breezeTrowel 4mo ago
  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?
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago
    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)
    - 9dev 4mo ago
      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.
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago
        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.
- js2 4mo ago
  $1.29 - https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/05/30Apple-Launches-iTunes-Plus/ 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-the-iTunes-Store/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-t...
- nosrepa 4mo ago
  I have fond memories of buying those 99 cents songs with coke caps my grandparents collected for me that had codes for itunes on them. Then I'd burn those to a cdrw and rip them again to remove the drm. I still have those files to this day.
- snapplebobapple 4mo ago
  Zero dollars. Because the marginal cost of production is zero and the movie production budget is just a sunk cost. We need to cut copyright terms back to the original term of 14 years and call it a day. Instead of the commons being ceded to benefit itself with hifher content production, the commons was just robbed to give us current copyright law
wat10000 4mo ago
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.
ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
They could still refund all those purchases and come out good here, but we all know they won't.

TheCondor 4mo ago

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?

jerf 4mo ago
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%3A2650304011%257C2650305011%257C6259461011%257C9397930011&dc&ds=v1%3AdwgsNDE3qfgq6s5PL%2FpAO7h2O02yNqZR%2Be4LEZ%2F6C8U 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".
nekusar 4mo ago
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.
- anonymars 4mo ago
  Related point: try legally playing 4k content* on your PC * obviously I mean movies/TV/etc. and the like where you have to pay money (as in the article)
madduci 4mo ago
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
- basisword 4mo ago
  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.
  - triceratops 4mo ago
    > 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?
  - onion2k 4mo ago
    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.
  - thesuitonym 4mo ago
dfxm12 4mo ago
Terminator 2 is currently $8 for a bluray on amazon. $10 for a DVD. This is reasonably a forever version.
- dingaling 4mo ago
  DVD perhaps yes, until the disc degrades. BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc.
  - dfxm12 4mo ago
    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.
    - lstodd 4mo ago
      Why even bother with all those hoops. Just download.
      - dfxm12 4mo ago
        Oh, I was adding a pertinent point of discussion in a discussion board. It is fun. I suggest you try it.
        nekusar 4mo ago
        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.
        dfxm12 4mo ago
        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)_/¯
lstodd 4mo ago
I would pay zero. I would just use torrents.
ksec 4mo ago
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.
Netcob 4mo ago
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.
- burnte 4mo ago
  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.
robinsonb5 4mo ago
I would pay what I used to pay for DVDs.
breezeTrowel 4mo ago
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?
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago
  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)
  - 9dev 4mo ago
    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.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago
      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.
js2 4mo ago
$1.29 - https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/05/30Apple-Launches-iTunes-Plus/ 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-the-iTunes-Store/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-t...
nosrepa 4mo ago
I have fond memories of buying those 99 cents songs with coke caps my grandparents collected for me that had codes for itunes on them. Then I'd burn those to a cdrw and rip them again to remove the drm. I still have those files to this day.
snapplebobapple 4mo ago
Zero dollars. Because the marginal cost of production is zero and the movie production budget is just a sunk cost. We need to cut copyright terms back to the original term of 14 years and call it a day. Instead of the commons being ceded to benefit itself with hifher content production, the commons was just robbed to give us current copyright law

wat10000 4mo ago

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.

ajsnigrutin 4mo ago

They could still refund all those purchases and come out good here, but we all know they won't.