3 ms·

Studio Canal directly got paid for each individual purchase. It isn't all on Sony, Studio Canal sold a product then took it away.

babypuncher 3mo ago
They're both to blame. Studio Canal insisted on a licensing agreement that works this way, and Sony agreed to it to sell their content. For Sony, the correct move here would have been to not list Studio Canal titles in the first place, and put out a very public statement saying that they aren't being listed until Studio Canal agrees to make purchased licenses perpetual as they should be.
- Terr_ 3mo ago
  > Both to blame IANAL but I think the US law approach is to rely on chaining, so the #1 blame is on Sony until Sony proves it isn't. 1. Consumers who were damaged sue Sony for damages. 2. If Sony loses, Sony sues Studio Canal for damages. 3. If Studio Canal loses... ?
  - matwood 3mo ago
    Correct. In theory, Sony should have warranted that they have the rights to sell the thing the way they sold it. If they didn't have the rights to sell a movie perpetually, then that's on them.
    - crote 3mo ago
      They don't need the rights to sell a movie perpetually, just the rights to sell perpetual movies.
crote 3mo ago
> Studio Canal sold a product then took it away If that's the case, why isn't Sony suing Studio Canal? The proper license for Sony to get is one which doesn't allow Studio Canal to take it away after sale in any way. So did Studio Canal somehow hack into Sony HQ to violate that license, or did Sony simply screw over its customers by not getting the proper license in the first place?
ndsipa_pomu 3mo ago
Not wishing to let them off the hook, but consumers did not enter into a contract with Studio Canal, so it's somewhat irrelevant to the actual issue. Sony willingly entered into a contract with Studio Canal and then "sold" items to consumers that they could reasonably foresee would be time limited without making that clear to the purchasers. I'd like to see Sony executives put in prison for fraud for this.

babypuncher 3mo ago

They're both to blame. Studio Canal insisted on a licensing agreement that works this way, and Sony agreed to it to sell their content. For Sony, the correct move here would have been to not list Studio Canal titles in the first place, and put out a very public statement saying that they aren't being listed until Studio Canal agrees to make purchased licenses perpetual as they should be.

Terr_ 3mo ago
> Both to blame IANAL but I think the US law approach is to rely on chaining, so the #1 blame is on Sony until Sony proves it isn't. 1. Consumers who were damaged sue Sony for damages. 2. If Sony loses, Sony sues Studio Canal for damages. 3. If Studio Canal loses... ?
- matwood 3mo ago
  Correct. In theory, Sony should have warranted that they have the rights to sell the thing the way they sold it. If they didn't have the rights to sell a movie perpetually, then that's on them.
  - crote 3mo ago
    They don't need the rights to sell a movie perpetually, just the rights to sell perpetual movies.

crote 3mo ago

> Studio Canal sold a product then took it away If that's the case, why isn't Sony suing Studio Canal? The proper license for Sony to get is one which doesn't allow Studio Canal to take it away after sale in any way. So did Studio Canal somehow hack into Sony HQ to violate that license, or did Sony simply screw over its customers by not getting the proper license in the first place?

ndsipa_pomu 3mo ago

Not wishing to let them off the hook, but consumers did not enter into a contract with Studio Canal, so it's somewhat irrelevant to the actual issue. Sony willingly entered into a contract with Studio Canal and then "sold" items to consumers that they could reasonably foresee would be time limited without making that clear to the purchasers. I'd like to see Sony executives put in prison for fraud for this.