14 ms·

Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

• maxverse 3mo ago
  Related discussions: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48730904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48730904 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346
  • HelloUsername 3mo ago
    Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48718967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48718967
  • qwerpy 3mo ago
    There’s still a good amount of outrage to be farmed from this, looks like.
• giancarlostoro 3mo ago
  They should at least make an effort to let you sync them into MoviesAnywhere which is supposed to solve the "I have this on iTunes, but not Android TV" problem by unlocking it across platforms if you sync your accounts. They should really let you permanently keep movies on defunct platforms as part of your standard MoviesAnywhere movie collection.
  • zamadatix 3mo ago
    Movies Anywhere works by aggregating the active digital access licenses you have participating partner services. The problem here is Sony won't be able to give any active digital access licenses for these movies to users after September 1st, let alone one which allows them to transfer that through Movies Anywhere. It's typical "you own nothing" logic to the point the companies selling you that also don't even own it.
    • giancarlostoro 3mo ago
      Sure, but its also run and operated by the rights holders, which they never even needed to do.
      • zamadatix 3mo ago
        It's more "streaming/delivery operators which also have some of their own licensed content": - Disney -> Disney+/Hulu - Universal/NBC -> Peacock - Warner Bros. -> Max - Lionsgate -> Lionsgate+ - Sony Pictures -> The Sony services relevant to the article (note: the Sony services sell more than just Sony Pictures content) They never needed to, but it actually makes them more money because a revenue share model through Movies Anywhere makes sense. StudioCanal does not sell streaming/delivery services directly to consumers, a revenue share model between streaming providers would not make them more money, and Sony would have no influence on StudioCanal doing so anyways.
  • Mindwipe 3mo ago
    The announcement only seems to have been sent to users in the UK and MoviesAnywhere is a US only service. Also StudioCanal are ultimately the rightsholder who would need to join MoviesAnywhere, and they are not members. (I am a bit surprised they didn't bung Google and StudioCanal a bit of money to move them to Google Play to avoid the bad publicity though.)
• keraf 3mo ago
  And with more and more content being distributed digitally, and even Sony announcing that physical disks won't be a thing from 2028 [0], the days of media ownership are gone. The only way to "own" content is it being DRM free (rare) or piracy. And ironically, DRMs justify the existence of piracy. [0] https://blog.playstation.com/2026/07/01/physical-disc-production-ending-in-january-2028-for-new-games-releasing-on-playstation-consoles/ https://blog.playstation.com/2026/07/01/physical-disc-produc...
• basisword 3mo ago
  I'm surprised movies haven't yet moved to DRM free on purchases the way music did on iTunes back in 2009. With movie files being so large and people having streaming services integrated in their TV's I can't imagine there is all that much incentive for people to share them anyway. The only thing it does is help prevent situations like this.
• eska 3mo ago
  It should be illegal to have others purchase what you as a company only licensed and therefore aren’t legally allowed to sell.
  • cryptonym 3mo ago
    Agree... if they want to sell it, parent company must agree on forever licenses for each user. Regardless of reselling license getting cancelled.
  • piltdownman 3mo ago
    They make it up as they go along. Their 2005 Audio-CD EULA includes provisions purporting to require the immediate deletion of all copies if a user files for personal bankruptcy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/12/summary-claims-against-sony-bmg?language=sv https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/12/summary-claims-against...
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    • howard941 3mo ago
      When the debtor files bankruptcy ownership immediately moves to the bankruptcy estate. This supposed obligation to delete might be disclosable on the executory contracts schedule.
  • noahbp 3mo ago
    Plenty of people purchase digital movie rentals from Apple, Youtube, etcetera because they know they will watch it once, and the lower price in exchange for a temporary license is acceptable to them. I don't think banning this is pro-consumer. It should, however, be illegal to tell your customers that they are purchasing/buying media without explicit "Rent" language (which implies a non-expiring license) when you do not yourself have the right to grant non-expiring licenses.
• piltdownman 3mo ago
  Sony literally distributed a rootkit in the guise of DRM for Audio CDs back when piracy meant CD-R distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... Anyone remotely surprised at their history of utter contempt for the end-user need only remind themselves of SVP Steve Heckler's remarks to conference attendee's in 2000 "The industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams ... It will not lose that revenue stream, no matter what ... Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this. We will develop technology that transcends the individual user." https://web.archive.org/web/20090318115847/http://www.nyfairuse.org/sony.xhtml https://web.archive.org/web/20090318115847/http://www.nyfair... The remarks of Stewart Baker of the DHS admonishing Sony are as relevant today as they were then; namely that "it's your intellectual property - it's not your computer." https://web.archive.org/web/20051229031842/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/admonish.html https://web.archive.org/web/20051229031842/http://www.mp3new...
  • azalemeth 3mo ago
    I haven't bought a single Sony product since then. I used to have a Sony walkman, clock radio, buy classical Sony CDs (or their sub brands), etc, nearly got an original PlayStation. I wrote a letter to them after the rootkit fiasco saying they've lost a consumer for life. Didn't get a real response. Wrote to them last anti DRM day. Didn't get a response. Really, this is the only power one has in capitalism -- don't buy their products.
    • melevittfl 3mo ago
      Same for me. I have boycotted Sony since the rootkit fiasco. I’m also still angry that, even though intentionally hacking a computer system is a criminal offence, not a single Sony employee was prosecuted or even arrested. Sony committed a crime on a massive scale that any individual would have been convicted of and spent years in jail for. They did it knowingly and for financial gain. They should be behind bars.
• shadowtree 3mo ago
  It is legitimately impossible to purchase certain movies, especially classic, in any format due to regional blocks. Simple example: "The Things of Life", a classic French movie from 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Things_of_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Things_of_Life No way to get it in the US. No physical media, no streaming. It is on Apple TV ... in France. You can torrent it. Utterly brokem model. Music is the same btw, Apple Music and Spotify geoblock music. Workaround is to add to your library when traveling in EU. Insane.
  • juliend2 3mo ago
    And for some non-geoblocked music, if you want to actually purchase the song as MP3, there's no way unless you have a Mac or Windows PC to install iTunes (too bad for Linux users). https://uk.7digital.com/ https://uk.7digital.com/ has a lot of songs available in MP3 format, but not as many as on iTunes.
  • leafmeal 3mo ago
    If you're open to physical media you can probably request it through your library, or similarly buy the dvd from ebay or something.
• NoSalt 3mo ago
  Ever since Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. started offering "free" online storage for photos, ever since streaming started to be popular, I have ALWAYS extolled the virtues of µSD card slots in phones and owning your own media (i.e., purchasing CDs and DVDs). Many people would give me a hard time about this, calling me a Luddite, but I will never lose access to my photos, music, or movies ... unless it is the end of the world as we know it, which I happily have on R.E.M.'s Eponymous album.
  • tartoran 3mo ago
    Why would anyone call you a luddite for advocating for MicroSDs? Of course the reason SD were pushed away (at least for Apple) was to offer cloud backup as the only option with no alternatives.
    • mikestew 3mo ago
      Of course the reason SD were pushed away (at least for Apple) was to offer cloud backup as the only option with no alternatives. Except that no part of what you claim is true: https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/back-up-iphone-iph3ecf67d29/ios https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/back-up-iphone-iph3ec...
      • sandcat_ 3mo ago
        Does anyone actually do this? I’m looking to reduce my reliance on iCloud but I’ve kept my backups there so far as it always seemed onerous to have to plug in and trigger the backup manually. And easy to forget, too.
        • tristor 3mo ago
          > Does anyone actually do this? Yep. I've been using an iPhone since 2012, so about 14 years. I do a local backup to my Macbook and then perform upgrades via USB, I don't do over the air upgrades. I also don't sync my photo albums into iCloud. I do have iCloud backups enabled also. It's not even a concern about privacy, per se, it's a question of whether or not I actually control my data if its not in my possession. More copies is good for resiliency.
• ge96 3mo ago
  No refund? I have a similar grief with YouTube movies although in that one, they don't play UHD. Some do like Valerian plays at least in 1080P, most movies are capped to 480P unless you have an "approved device" eg. something probably riddled with ads.
  • mr_toad 3mo ago
    1080p or higher is pretty common on the high seas, even for titles like cartoons, which in my opinion is overkill.
    • ge96 3mo ago
      They do have Cowboy Bebop in 1080P on YouTube which looks amazing, I bought it I don't partake in downloading anymore but I do go to streaming sites
    • realo 3mo ago
      A long time ago I worked in the video codec area and was shown then that the most difficult videos to compress (i.e. with the most compressed bytes resulting in the file) were cartoons, because of the sharp edges, etc. Not sure if it is still the case today with the latest generations of ultra-advanced codecs.
    • BeetleB 3mo ago
      Strong disagree. When I saw Spirited Away on 1080p, it blew my mind. And Coraline is just amazing, although it's not a cartoon...
• rvz 3mo ago
  Your purchase has been literally deleted.
• steveBK123 3mo ago
  Incredible timing with the news they are discontinuing disks in 2028. You will own nothing.
  • matheusmoreira 3mo ago
    And you'll be happy. It will be mandatory and enforced.
  • iceyest 3mo ago
    I keep seeing people whinge about disks, but I dont see the benefit. Most people dont even have the hardware to read a disk... How is this any different from downloading a file off the internet? Maybe its fun to juggle a bunch of disks? Right I should also add I'm mostly talking about PC here.
    • steveBK123 3mo ago
      Rights management in a physical media world = I have the media in my hand (caveats for some DRM systems) Rights management for digital media = companies remotely deleting paid content from my account & keeping my money / songs disappearing out of my streaming playlist / etc
• bilekas 3mo ago
  It used to be that streaming services were an excellent option even over torrenting because of the ease of access and use. Now we're not even getting to retain what we buy, this is not a streaming service, these were sold to users individually. We've gone full circle where I honestly believe pirating is a far better offering. The root of the problem is these ridiculous content licensing agreements, it should be very very obvious to the customer when they're buying that "Hey, you will own this until X date when our content licensing agreement is finished" Not hidden by design in some dense ToS.
• pgwalsh 3mo ago
  Not the first time and not going to be the last. Unless you can download it to hardware you completely own and can make a backup, it's not really yours. Online purchases I can get on with, like Bandcamp are pretty good. I bought the new Globular album on CD and it took 10 days to get to me from the UK. I also had access to high quality downloads. That works, these other models do not.
  • satellites 3mo ago
    Bandcamp rules. I do still subscribe to Apple Music for cheap streaming, but for albums I really like, I'll spend the $8 on bandcamp for the high quality album download. Better support for the artist, and protection against license-pulling BS like this.
    • nekusar 3mo ago
      [dead]
  • dylan604 3mo ago
    Even if you have a back up copy of a DRM file and they have turned off the authenticating services, that digital file is of now use to you until someone comes up with a way of decrypting it. This is what Microsoft did with their music service.
    • mikestew 3mo ago
      When MS ended Plays fer Sure sales two years after they started, and no DRM-free alternative (well, MS said you could burn to CD at a crap bitrate), that's when I learned to operate sails and a rudder. I tried to play nice, but I could see where this was going. I still make digital purchases, but at the first sign of friction, at the first indication that I'm gonna get screwed somehow, I leave port and off to the open waters. Fuck 'em, I played by the rules until I discovered that I was the only one doing so.
• c-hendricks 3mo ago
  Should mention today Sony also announced the end of physical releases for their consoles, and the closure of the PS3 and PSVita stores.
• jobs_throwaway 3mo ago
  This is one reason why piracy is legitimate and important
• jo4329j5 3mo ago
  That's why I pirate content and will continue to pirate content. I'm not hurting artists. I go to shows and premiers and book signings. I'm perfectly fine with stealing from publishing cartels.
  • PUSH_AX 3mo ago
    > I'm not hurting artists I guess residuals are a made up thing.
    • someonebaggy 3mo ago
      [dead]
    • Waterluvian 3mo ago
      The communication on this could be better. I feel like I’ve heard that artists often get pretty much nothing. At some point, being more honest about what artists get paid will probably help the middlemen more than harm them.
    • crote 3mo ago
      Basically, yeah. A company like Spotify pays fractions of a cent per stream. If you're not a Taylor Swift, residuals are essentially a rounding error. Going to tours, concerts, or signings makes the artist far more money. We've reached a point where Spotify has become nothing more than a well-disguised advertising platform for concerts.
      • PUSH_AX 3mo ago
        Ok cool, can I cherry pick now? TV actors in expansive TV series' with residuals in their contract. It can be a significant part of their income.
    • butlike 3mo ago
      If residuals are too good, they just pull your show from distribution (see: Westworld via HBO).
• raluk 3mo ago
  In similar fashon in year 2009 Amazon deleted books from Kindle. One of them was 1984 from George Orwell.
  • ahartmetz 3mo ago
    We even have novel writing machines now!
• webdoodle 3mo ago
  A friend of mine owned the first Ipod, and diligently ripped all his cd's and cut and pasted them too his device. I asked if he had backups, and he said he had the cd's. I told him too make a copy, just in case the Apple mafia came too delete his stuff. He didn't, and then after a move he lost or scratched many of his CD's. His only backup WAS the ripped MP3's. A few years later Apple deleted all of his music claiming he hadn't purchased them. He didn't even know how to download music. Every single MP3 he had he ripped himself...
• montroser 3mo ago
  That "thank you" at the end is particularly classy. Thank you for getting fucked and giving us your money.
• glimshe 3mo ago
  I've heard there's a service called PirateBay that offers movies free of DRM. Maybe people considering being Sony customers in the future should give it a try.
  • charcircuit 3mo ago
    That's copyright infringement. They do not have the rights to distribute the movies.
    • someonebaggy 3mo ago
      [dead]
    • skeptic_ai 3mo ago
      But you can actually purchase them at 100% discount. And you can own as long as you want. Seems a much better deal.
    • haakon 3mo ago
      You're right, we should strive for compliance with copyrights and distribution licenses in our personal lives.
      • infinite_spin 3mo ago
        [dead]
      • charcircuit 3mo ago
        It is the best way to support artists and the industry.
        • rustcleaner 3mo ago
          I'm not going to click "purchase," I'm just not going to. Sorry... not sorry! :^)
    • AndroTux 3mo ago
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• nullsmack 3mo ago
  We need some kind of modern equivalent to the old proposed Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act but which protects people's rights to digital media they buy. These should never be sold and then taken away with no compensation like this. We need a law that forces companies to treat digital files the same as a physical purchase. They can't take it away and have to allow people to resell and loan out as well. And in cases of online games where you can buy something, and then later they can ban you which deprives you of being able to use what you bought, that should come with requirements that the company must provide full compensation of the purchase price. It should also ban EULA's and TOS from defining these things as only licenses even though they are structured as a purchase in a store. I know it'll never happen with the people we have in government these days, and the anti-consumer organizations, like the ESA, that are out there now claiming things like running private servers for Minecraft is illegal and piracy. (Yes, they really said that. Despite the fact that Minecraft has always provided the server and allowed this for 15+ years)
  • EA-3167 3mo ago
    They’ll be begging for it when they recreate the very piracy problem they were fleeing, but far worse.
    • dopidopHN2 3mo ago
      Yeah. This time I'm not living the high seas. We seen what licensing ala Netflix and Spotify means artists.
      • wongarsu 3mo ago
        *leaving
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • hodgehog11 3mo ago
    Not sure if you know this, but this is literally the Stop Killing Games movement. Despite the recent apparent setback as reported in the news, the organisers are in talks with EU MPs that are writing sweeping legislation to address this sort of thing across all digital mediums. You only need legislation like this to hold in one major market to make a big difference.
• bloomingeek 3mo ago
  Wait, people trusted a corporation and got screwed?!? Why, that's...unheard of!(My wife, bless her, has "purchased" dozens of movies on amazon. I warned her that when the amazon wind changes, she may regret those purchases. I got the look.)
  • devn0ll 3mo ago
    I understand where you are going with this, but it also feels incorrect to me to blame people innocently "buying" media from a $corporation. What are people to do if they want to stay on the non-pirate/legal side of this but also prevent being royally F-ed?
    • someonebaggy 3mo ago
      There's no overlap. Just pirate.
    • nkrisc 3mo ago
      You can just not watch a movie. No one needs movies.
      • Capricorn2481 3mo ago
        Nobody said otherwise.
    • ahartmetz 3mo ago
      I suppose you could "buy" and also get a copy off of thepiratebay.org - you already paid for the license. It is teeechnically illegal because the "purchase" agreement very likely doesn't allow backups, but come on. (Also, the uploading part of torrenting is usually separately illegal)
  • someonebaggy 3mo ago
    [dead]
  • mskonline 3mo ago
    Or when the account gets compromised. I recently lost my amazon account and with it, all of my kindle purchases. Fortunately, I was able to turn on the airplane mode on my kindle just in time and preserve the books which were already downloaded. Guess I have to jail break it some day.
• steele 3mo ago
  Ending the production of physical discs too. Ripe for disruption.
  • someonebaggy 3mo ago
    No legal disruption is possible - these are the terms content holders insist on. Illegal disruption already happened and you already have access to it, but you're not using it because you don't want to break the law.
    • steele 3mo ago
      Vinyl records remain collectible and have increased in demand. Physical media is still desirable, and rotting optical discs are probably not the final physical format for future video game titles. Corporatist regulatory environments have allowed the consumers to be led to subscriptions to thrive. I am confident that there are legal avenues to address consumer demands to own.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• stronglikedan 3mo ago
  I really hope this leads to a class action that sets precedence, but I won't hold my breath or even consider whether that's even possible.
  • someonebaggy 3mo ago
    Class actions are usually not very effective. Each affected individual will receive $0.03 and the company will pay 0.5% of the money it made from this maneuver. What actually works is the opposite, mass small claims lawsuits for refunds, because that way the cost of handling those cases is much higher for the company than for the individual.
• jimt1234 3mo ago
  Reminds me of 1984, not the book itself, but the time when Amazon deleted it from everyone's Kindle because of some sort of copyright issue. I think that's when most of us first realized that the digital media being purchased doesn't really belong to you. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-kindle-1984 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-ki...
• firefoxd 3mo ago
  It is in times like these that I start getting messages from friend and family that asks: > What's the name of that website? I tell them to use yandex, they will find plenty of such websites...
  • nekusar 3mo ago
    gitflic.ru is the Russian Github that permits speech that the DMCA doesn't. And yes, bypassing DRM is banned speech in the USA, punishable by criminal law. And there's no actual requirement of a company to claim DRM and defeat methods. The law is set up so they can claim basically anything, and its 100% backed by criminal law. 1FA is kinda a joke, cause saying inane shit like "Hitler was a good guy" is perfectly fine, but "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" (HD-DVD private key) is criminally banned speech.
  • zuzululu 3mo ago
    its funny how Russia became the champion for free speech as long as it doesnt impact them
• RIMR 3mo ago
  If buying isn't owning, then pirating isn't stealing.
• reactordev 3mo ago
  You will own nothing and be happy. Buying anything digitally now-a-days is the same as renting as far as they are concerned.
• matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  You've already paid for it. Just download it from somewhere else with a clean conscience.
  • butlike 3mo ago
    Bonus points if you do this while retaining the original copy.
  • ragazzina 3mo ago
    You paid for it, but you never bought it. So you would still not have a clean conscience.
    • matheusmoreira 3mo ago
      If you paid for it, then not a single person in the world can ever accuse you of "stealing" from creators, or of failing to support them. They named the price, and the price was paid. The licensing and rent seeking shenanigans of corporations and their lawyers are utterly irrelevant.
      • a96 3mo ago
        Practically infinite number of persons in law enforcement and blackmail businesses absolutely would accuse you.
        • matheusmoreira 3mo ago
          I meant normal people, not the enforcers of monopolistic laws that were bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.
      • ragazzina 3mo ago
        Having a clean conscience depends on one's internal moral values, not from what the rest of the world accuses of. If one's moral compass would feel the need to having paid for it to feel satisfied, it would also need to having bought it.
• Danii27 3mo ago
  The honest product description would be: "You are purchasing a revocable license to stream this content at our discretion, for an unspecified period, subject to change without notice." Nobody would buy that. So they say "buy" instead, and courts have largely let them get away with it. Until legislation actually forces the word "buy" to mean ownership, this will keep happening.
  • Buttons840 3mo ago
    I disagree. People would still buy that. There's a dangerous path where the companies are required to describe these transactions as "rentals", but that wont actually solve anything. If we require clearer advertising, we're going to end up with a world where everything is very clearly a rental, and there simply is no option to purchase. People will still buy the $40 "rentals" because it's their favorite movie and they want to watch it multiple times, and it's Friday night and they want to watch it right now. I think people understand the situation when they "purchase" digital media. They know it might not last forever. They do it anyway. They don't like it though. They would prefer genuine ownership, but it's not an option. We either need to outlaw these long term rentals, or break up monopolies until companies that are actually offering genuine purchases arise. Or we could do both. We need to regulate more than just the wording on the "purchase" page. This isn't just a problem of wording.
    • acdha 3mo ago
      I think it’d be helpful as a price anchoring tool: people think rentals are worth less and accept greater restrictions because they’re paying less. I don’t think you’d see nearly as many people paying $40 for a time-limited rental and that downward pressure would be healthy.
    • temporallobe 3mo ago
      > I think people understand the situation when they "purchase" digital media. They know it might not last forever. I don’t think this is true at all because 1) truly nothing is forever, i.e., even physical media degrades over time or gets lost, stolen, etc., and 2) the customer is absolutely led to believe that “purchase” means ownership similar to having a physical copy, as long as that service provider exists. Otherwise it’s clearly a rental.
• stonecharioteer 3mo ago
  Yohohoho. Going to bring Binks' Brew.
• anigbrowl 3mo ago
  2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48718967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48718967 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346 4 years ago ( so it's not the first time studioCanal has done this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32010317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32010317
  • bsammon 3mo ago
    It's interesting that (in one regard) Sony is getting a PR win with the "StudioCanal has done this" narrative. Another perspective: In accordance with the licensing system that Sony and their lobbyists helped establish, Sony's licensing agreement with StudioCanal came up for renewal. Sony decided that they didn't want to pay StudioCanal's perfectly reasonable() asking price. this is StudioCanal's perspective.
    • crote 3mo ago
      I think it is quite tricky to argue that StudioCanal did anything wrong. Sony isn't a naive child, they've got whole armies of lawyers analyzing the deals they sign. If Sony knowingly signs a horrible deal (such as a Netflix-like "you can show this bunch of content to users and let them download it for X years") which due to their desire to sell movies leads to them inevitably getting screwed over on their (now-mandatory) contract renewal, that's on them. Either Sony should've insisted on a contract which included a right to sell perpetual sublicenses, or they shouldn't have "sold" those inherently-temporary movies to end users. It really is that simple.
    • anigbrowl 3mo ago
      They're not getting a PR win, I am redirecting people's attention to StudioCanal because I think hating on Sony is lazy, and also because having worked in the movie business I think I have some more insight into the licensing end of things. StudioCanal wants to make as much money, like any publisher, but we don't know how much they wanted for this deal or how that compares to pricing for other IP. Movies are not fungible, really, and StudioCanal has a lot of classics. Like Disney, they keep the price up by rotating out of streaming licensing windows regularly; for example if your copy of terminator II disappeared from your Playstation you might be doubly upset to note it's also vanished from Netflix (or is just about to, I don't remember the exact dates). Also, I think it's an misrepresentation (though surely unintentional) to talk about Sony's unwillingness to pay in the present tense. These movies were originally licensed/bought years ago, and Sony shut down movie sales on the Playstation store in 2021. I presume this was because they couldn't make the economics work, but it's possible that there was some antitrust angle since Sony produces films and antitrust in the US has historically frowned on film companies controlling both production and distribution. The DOJ repealed the 1948 'Paramount Decrees' in 2020 which might also have been a factor in Sony's decision-making.
• Cider9986 3mo ago
  https://fmhy.net https://fmhy.net is the most comprehensive piracy guide ever creates with over 30k links.
• felooboolooomba 3mo ago
  This might have repercussions in the UK. There are supreme court where T&C have been invalidated due to not being advertised well enough. The more onerous the clause is, the more burden is laid on the seller to make sure the customer understands that. I doubt most of the people who "bought" the film understood that they weren't buying it and it could be taken away from theme at any time.
• mdavid626 3mo ago
  I feel zero guilt to pirate movies.
• RajT88 3mo ago
  I am fine with "renting" a streaming movie, as an analogue to analog - going to Blockbuster and renting a movie. But I not for a single second trusted "buying" digital goods, and I was quickly proved right. The first digital purchases getting yanked story must have been close to 20 years ago at this point. I still buy CD's and books and game discs when the digital DRM-free equivalent cannot be had.
  • acdha 3mo ago
    > But I not for a single second trusted "buying" digital goods, and I was quickly proved right. The first digital purchases getting yanked story must have been close to 20 years ago at this point. More like 30 years but your terminology is slightly off: I have music I bought in the 90s which still works fine because they sold it as MP3s without DRM and I was able to make my own backups. There’s nothing wrong with digital goods as a concept but we should be consistent in how we talk about it: if it involves an outside service, it’s a rental no matter how the seller describes it. If you can make your own copy and survive a corporate bankruptcy or merger, then it’s a real purchase.
    • RajT88 3mo ago
      You are right, I whiffed and forgot about the 90's music services.
• danbruc 3mo ago
  What did those movies cost? More like a movie ticket or more like a Blu-ray?
• system2 3mo ago
  Piracy is back, and stronger than ever. After all this bullshit happening with services, I will not be buying a movie from any service like sony, amazon, or youtube. Maybe a DVD or Blu-ray here and there, but no digital ownership.
• cooprh 3mo ago
  Excellent time to get a Jellyfin instance setup!
• surcap526 3mo ago
  [dead]
• surcap526 3mo ago
  [dead]
• zekyl314 3mo ago
  I try and get around this by purchasing a DVD / Blu-Ray and ripping it down to my media server, but not always successful ripping them. It would be nice if you bought a digital movie, you could click download instead. Then you wouldn't lose it when their licensing agreements change / end.
• nmstoker 3mo ago
  I recall when Google nearly did the same for all the people with Google Workspace legacy free edition accounts. They had no idea how many people they were going to massively upset but they did see sense (which itself is remarkable!)
• m_m_carvalho 3mo ago
  [dead]
• ChrisArchitect 3mo ago
  [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346
• Grombobulous 3mo ago
  We’re all familiar with all the ways this sucks, of course, so I’ll discuss something else: The fact that someone like Sony can’t negotiate a contract that provides perpetual re-download rights to customers is embarrassing. I doubt that would have cost any money. No movie studio would have objected to the idea that the original buyer gets to keep the non-transferable media forever. I guess they just didn’t think of it? What law school did these Sony lawyers go to, anyway? Does Sony just not even care about their brand image at all? This was entirely avoidable.
  • ryandrake 3mo ago
    These vague licensing complications seem to be unnecessary "own goals" the industry keep scoring on itself over and over. Rights to distribute via digital download are separate from rights to stream, which are separate from rights to broadcast, which are separate from DVD rights, and then multiply that by every rights holder and "region" out there. Good grief! Why do they deliberately make it so complicated?
  • TheSkyHasEyes 3mo ago
    > can’t ....or won't.
  • melevittfl 3mo ago
    Of course they could have negotiated that. They didn’t just forget. They choose to not pay whatever additional cost Studio Canal would have wanted for a perpetual license. Knowing that, they turned around and deceived people into buying something by false representation. Sony are crooks and have been crooks for a long time.
    • Grombobulous 3mo ago
      I agree with you, but my main speculation is that a perpetual license would not have actually cost extra. It is at least possible that this happened via incompetence rather than malice, especially at a big corporation like Sony.
• FlamingMoe 3mo ago
  This is why I recently purchased a NAS and have started storing all my movies and TV shows on it. Especially classics that I will want to watch with my kids when they are older. It's a bit of a PITA to rip dvds, but my thought is that if a movie or show isn't worth the time it takes to rip and transferring to the NAS, then it's probably not worth a watch at all.
• Bender 3mo ago
  Perhaps a taboo take but I for one appreciate that Sony is justifying and incentivizing piracy.
• butlike 3mo ago
  It kinda sucks seeing the PlayStation turn to trash after so many good memories with PS1/PS2. I guess nothing lasts forever.
• temporallobe 3mo ago
  Would live to hear an attorney’s opinion on this - why isn’t this considered to be something like “constructive theft” just like constructive abandonment or constructive dismissal? Sony deceived millions of customers by implying that purchasing something meant permanent ownership (as permanent as digital media can be), then through legal trickery and without consent, essentially “took” away their digital property. I wonder if legal concepts such as “constructive larceny” or “theft by conversion” could be applied here, or if this would be considered destruction of property?
• BrenBarn 3mo ago
  Relevant from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48697335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48697335 ("The case for physical media ownership").
• spl757 3mo ago
  When a corporation makes playing by the rules harder than pirating, especially after "selling" you a movie, then people are going to pirate. Corporations bring it on themselves by acting poorly and just being greedy and giving the consumer no quarter as they movies they "purchased" are removed without refund. Pirating is easy. Why should I deal with thieves that sell you something then steal it back from you when, with a broadband connection, I can have a 4k Blue Ray rip downloadewd and imported into a media server and watchable in less than 10 minutes? Now they are trying to argue that all unnofficial servers running minecraft are illegial, and they are going to start going after the minecrafters. Good luck with THAT. Fuck that nonsense.
  • ezwoodland 3mo ago
    > Pirating is easy... That reasoning is why companies would prefer it be more difficult.
• Cub3 3mo ago
  If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing
• StefanoC 3mo ago
  This would be perfectly fine if they provided a refund, adjusted for inflation. I'm quite surprised that they haven't, it seems so obviously necessary to me.
• specproc 3mo ago
  Piracy remains the best way to consume films at home. If you don't have it on your hard drive in an open format, you don't own it.
• thereforegrin 3mo ago
  isn't it simply destruction of property?
• natas 3mo ago
  I'm done with sony, forever. Cameras, consoles, whatever, I'm just done. Goodbye!