RIP_Cheems,
@RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world avatar

Ok then, I’m gonna start stealing Spiderman 2 and sell it to people for, like, $20, and not take it back.

Aceticon,

I’m just shocked how many commenters here somehow seem to think that Sony can choose for their own profit to engage in contracts with mismatched responsabilities - i.e. a short-term contract with WB right next to a much longer term responsability towards retail customer - and not be financially responsible towards their retail customers at one end for the losses that arose from the termination of the very Contract Sony chose to sign at the opposite end.

Imagine if you hire somebody to build you a garden shed and they paid some fly-by-night company for the wood because they were cheaper and that company just to took off with the money. You think they could just legally turn to you, their customer, and say “sorry, we chose some fishy guys for the wood for your shed and they took the money and didnt gave us the wood, so now we’ll keep your money and you’re not going to get your shed. Bye bye!”.

Contract Law isolates Contractual responsabilities in any one contract (including the implied contract of a Retail Sale) to the parties in that contract alone exactly because long term contractual commitments would be de facto impossible in a world were every purchaser also ran risks on every one of their supplier’s own contracts as purchasers, in turn having the risks of their suppliers’ suppliers’ and so on as deep as the chain went.

ky56,

I think most rational people hate the game rather than Sony directly. We don’t care if that’s the rules Sony or anyone else has to play by. It’s time for the industry to evolve or die.

In-fact I reckon if we see digital retailers reject “selling” digital content because it’s not profitable due to end customers rejecting the terms, the studios licensing the content would evolve overnight.

Aceticon,

I’ve been boycotting Sony since the late 90s exactly because they not only played the game in the most anti-consumer way possible, but they very activelly lobbyied for the kind of legislation like the DMCA.

This is maybe one of the companies who spent the most money to make “the game” the incredibly rigged mess it is today.

Your naive “blame the game” reaction is exactly what companies like Sony want: blame the puppets not the puppeteers.

Ever since their Media Production Division took over the management of the company in the 90s (before it was mostly the Engineering side that led it, hence why they were once famous for the exceptional quality of their eletronics) they’ve very much been reliably acting in the most corrupt, abusive, evil ways possible.

ky56,

I’m not defending Sony. Though I am also trying to discuss the industry standard practices that they operate in. That said how come Valve lets you keep any purchased game after the license is revoked but nearly every other digital store doesn’t or is hit and miss. It’s clearly something in the contract/licensing deal.

In other words Sony could choose to play hard ball and only sign contracts that permit continuous use of content after purchasing it. Thereby allowing something closer to actual ownership. Though the question is whether Sony and other digital marketplaces can convince rights holders to agree to such terms in the movie/tv industry.

arc,

The problem here is people didn’t buy content. They’ve bought a license to view content and somewhere in the smallprint is Sony’s right to revoke the right whenever they like for whatever reason. Other services have done likewise, either withdrawing content or just failing altogether.

So first off, as a consumer stop buying DRM’d shit because it won’t end well under any circumstances. Second, lobby for digital property to have rights akin to physical property so the right to destroy, lend, sell, or donate it is inherent to a purchase. e.g. maybe a purchase gives you a token and a signed / watermarked file in a playable format. And incentivize providers to sell digital property by taxing services that impose DRM to create a favourable price disparity.

snaggen,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

No, what you describe is called “Rent” or “Lease”. People who press a “Buy” button and buy something, expect to own it. Words have a meaning, and trying to wiggle around this with fine print should be considered fraudulent.

EncryptKeeper,

No, he’s right. You are buying something, but what you’re missing is that you’re not buying the content itself. You’re buying the right to access the content for an indeterminate amount of time. You’re not renting in the same way that buying a movie ticket isn’t renting. The thing you’re buying is just inherently temporary, and that’s the problem.

Aceticon,

It’s not “buy” by itself, it’s “buy a film” or “buy a TV series”.

The word “buy” followed by the name of a service (say, “access to films”) can indeed carry the meaning you describe (so in that example “buy access to films” is the same as “renting films”) even if it is an unusual wording, however when the word “buy” is followed by the name of a good, not a service, (i.e. “buy a film”) it is interpreted in trade, legal and common terms as acquiring ownership rights to that good.

Granted, IP law is a big bloody mess and Consumer Rights in places like the US are pretty much Fuck-You-Plebe, so legally in the US who knows what levels of misleading contractual terms and one-sided post-sale of imposition of new contractual terms via EULAs towards retail customers are legal, but in both common usage and trade, in pretty much all areas but those covered by IP Law, “buy a good” means buying a product, which is something else altogether than “buy temporary access to a good” which is the meaning Sony is using.

Generally in Consumer Law, these things tend to boil down to whether a normal individual with no legal expertise could be reasonably expected to understand the terms of the contract with the meaning Sony claims or not, though in the US, with the kind of Consumer Protection laws it has, run-of-the-mill (not rich, not lawyers or judges) consumers are most likely legally fucked, de facto and quite possibly de jure

EncryptKeeper, (edited )

however when the word “buy” is followed by the name of a good, not a service, (i.e. “buy a film”) it is interpreted in trade, legal and common terms as acquiring ownership rights to that good.

Thats why you’ll never see “The word buy followed by the name of a good”. In fact, you probably won’t even see the word “buy”. Most commonly you’ll see “add to cart” and then “check out”. Which are coincidentally the same words you’ll see when buying a movie ticket.

If you can “buy” a movie ticket which allows you to watch a movie on a temporary basis, you can “buy” a license to play a game on a temporary basis.

This isn’t even a new, online marketplace problem. Even when you were buying physical disks, you were still purchasing a license, not the game in perpetuity.

arc,

People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.

Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

snaggen,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

If I give you the impression that you buy a gold bar, but in reality you get a cheap gold plated metal bar, then that is fraud. It doesn’t matter if it looks and feel the same.

arc,

People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.

Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

That may be but it’s what these services are doing and will continue to do until lawmakers enact digital property laws along the lines that I suggest.

Skyzyx,
@Skyzyx@lemmy.world avatar

Copyright is literally the definition of “who has the rights to determine how copies are made.” If you were to believe most people who publish content on YouTube, you might think that copyright means authorship, but it does not.

When you purchase a movie on Blu-ray, you don’t own the film. You own a piece of plastic which represents a license to watch the film. But you can’t turn around, make copies, and start selling those copies without violating The film studios “right to determine how copies are made.“

The only difference between a physical Blu-ray (license) and a digital license is that digital license is revocable. It’s not fair. It isn’t just. But it’s literally part of the contract that you agreed to.

There’s a separate discussion to be had around “fair use.” Backing up stuff that you have paid money for does fall into “fair use,“ unless third-party encryption is involved. Because it is against the law to circumvent encryption. (Unless, of course, you’re the FBI.)

This is the only characteristic that separates ripping CDs from ripping DVDs — CDs missed the boat on encryption.

I’m not necessarily arguing for or against anything here other than to simply explain how it currently works (in the US, at least). There’s a separate discussion to be had about perpetual versus revocable licenses after money has been exchanged. Beyond that, there’s a discussion to be about how to protect the intellectual property of the things that you spent millions of dollars creating; and how that fares with the consumers of said intellectual property.

These latter discussions are far more nuanced than most Internet commenters are qualified to decide.

snaggen,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

I can sell a disk to whoever I want. I can lend my disk to a friend. I can play my disk in any player I want. Heck, I’m even allowed to crack the copy right on the disk if that is needed to play it on my device. I have the right to backup my disk to a hard drive.

Don’t pretend Buying a movie online is anything close to buying it on a physical medium. It doesn’t make you look good.

arc,

I never said anything about copyright giving you right to copy movies. But if I own a CD, blu-ray or a book, I physically OWN that blu-ray or book. I can stick it on a shelf, lend it to someone, give it away, burn it, sell it on e-bay. It doesn’t entitle me to duplicate it, but the media is mine, as is my right of ownership in law.

Conversely if I buy a digital movie on Amazon (or any other provider) I’ve bought a license to it. Next time I go view it, the movie might have gone. Or maybe Amazon just shitcans the entire service (as it has before). Or maybe they just decide to ban my account for whatever reason. Or maybe they don’t like that I’ve moved to another continent. Whatever the reason I have no recourse. Nor can I sell my license, lend it, or anything else.

That’s the problem I’m talking about. There is no reason that when I buy a movie from Amazon or another provider it has to be this way. Instead I should buy the movie, and have a copy of movie and a token that shows my ownership of it. They can watermark the mkv to bind it to the token and me and copyright holders might come after me if I unlawfully share the file. But I should be able to sell my copy if I want. I should be able to borrow a copy from a digital library. I should be able to do things equivalent to a physical copy.

zbyte64,
@zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I would have more sympathy for that argument if the same was applied to the government regulating land and taxes. It ain’t your land or your money, you have it on lease from the government so stop bitching and render unto Caesar.

smileyhead,

I remember when Apple was obligated to replace a text on app download button from “free” to “get”, because many apps are free of price to download but make money by in-app purchaces.

Maybe we could do something like that for streaming services.

calypsopub,

We really need to add textbooks into that. It’s absolutely a crime to charge hundreds of dollars for a book that cannot be resold.

arc,

IMO textbooks, at least in schools should just be given away in electronic form. I live in Ireland where parents have to buy physical copies from a retailer and it’s just stupid duplication of effort and a waste of money.

fne8w2ah,

That’s why streaming is the new cable TV.

arc,

I think streaming is fine - if a show is removed or the service dies you haven’t lost content because you never owned any in the first place and never expected to.

I really don’t know why anyone buys from the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon, Sony etc. People don’t own the content, they own a license which lasts as long as the service or the rights to the content and then it’s gone.

MrScottyTay,

One thing I’ve not seen discussed, is this actually Sony’s fault or are they not behest to the companies that hold the content rights to do this?

I’ve not looked into it much beyond comments so I don’t have the answer myself.

sushibowl,

I don’t know if it makes any sense to assign blame here to another party than Sony. As a customer who bought a license to watch these shows, that’s the company that you have an arrangement with. It seems that their licensing arrangements with Warner Brothers were limited time, and either WB isn’t inclined to renew them or is asking more than Sony is willing to cough up.

Probably a combination of both if I had to guess. WB is seeking to maximise the value of their own HBO Max streaming platform, so they want the content to be exclusive and not license it out to others. At the same time Sony is probably not excited to keep spending cash every few years just to keep content available to customers, they’re not making any additional money from that.

So the end result is the current situation. Obviously customers agreed to whatever terms Sony put in their EULA at the time so I’m sure it’s legally covered and whatever, but it seems pretty scummy and misleading nonetheless. Like, if they were honest on the purchase screen and said “you can pay $20 for the right to watch this season of mythbusters, but any time we like we can take it away from you again and there’s nothing you can do,” how many people would have bought that? But effectively that is what people bought, they just weren’t aware.

Aux,

Yes, it’s Sony’s fault.

anarchy79,
@anarchy79@lemmy.world avatar

Sony is one of the vilest corporations out there.

Fuckers literally installed rootkits on customers’ computers (across the board, you listen to a CD on your computer- bam) to police DRM.

Check “Sony Rootkit Scandal”, they got caught and were sued… yet here we are. Again.

krakenx,

Don’t forget: Selling the PS3 with Linux support so that they could pay taxes as if it was a PC as well as to justify the high price to consumers. Then removing Linux later through a mandatory update.

anarchy79,
@anarchy79@lemmy.world avatar

Ooof, this one was new to me. My surprise level still hovers stably at 0%.

kftX,

Just feel like I should at least add two more things here:

  1. Storing information do their customers as plaintext data, then getting hacked and losing all that information (infamous PSN hack);
  2. Releasing a portable console that cost between 250 and 300€, promising support for it then 2 years in, give up on it, never officially tell customers, but have one of your higher execs tell the press said console is a great “accessory” for the PS4.

This is why I don’t personally buy Sony hardware.

FangedWyvern42,
@FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world avatar

The Vita’s failure is really weird when you consider that they had already produced a successful portable system that had years of support, the PSP.

kftX,

The only thing I can think of is that they were refocusing their games division around the PS4 to reclaim their space in the home console area after the disaster that the PS3 was initially taking advantage of the initial failure of the Xbox One.

PS Vita and their owners were just a collateral Sony was absolutely willing to sacrifice.

ICastFist,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

I blame mainly their insistence on using proprietary memory cards. That stupid piece of shit was overly expensive and used nowhere else. If they went with microSD, it’d have sold better. Even pirates have to buy hardware.

anarchy79,
@anarchy79@lemmy.world avatar

I keep forgetting just how many scandals they’ve been involved with, and the serious negative influence they’ve had on how business is done with regards to digital as well as physical goods.

HiddenLayer5, (edited )
@HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml avatar

Reminder that the largest brands regularly and shamelessly steal from small independent artists to sell for profit, knowing that the artists don’t have the resources to do anything about it: web.archive.org/…/digital-art-copyright-marvel-pa…

And these are the companies trying to convince you that pirating big name media for your own personal use is theft.

fne8w2ah,

Artistes must be between a rock and a hard place when even “legal” Spotify openly admits to screwing on royalties.

HiddenLayer5,
@HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s an open secret that musicians get totally screwed by record labels.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=whQ8UBoz-To

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_y_zeql7pc

Zummy,

I’m not saying this isn’t wrong, because I believe it is, but the fact is that if you digitally own anything from video games to music to movies you should understand that it can be taken from you without a moment’s notice. Is it right? Hell no! Will it continue to happen? Hell yes!

ExLisper,

They should refund it though, no?

There are services where you pay per view/limited time access. If I pay for permanent access and unlimited viewings then I should be refunded when this changes.

If Sony can’t guarantee unlimited access they they should sell “one year”, “five year” or “whatever they can guarantee” access and charge accordingly. If they don’t refund it’s a classic bait and switch.

TechAnon,

Shout out to Streamio + real-debrid + torrentio! 🖤🏴‍☠️

tungah,

Yaaarrr, matey!

MisterFrog,
@MisterFrog@lemmy.world avatar

Can’t everyone just get a refund on everything they’re taking down?

atrielienz,

Not from Sony, but nobody has tried to get a refund from WB or whoever owns Discovery.

MisterFrog,
@MisterFrog@lemmy.world avatar

Why not from Sony, they are the retailer, at least under Australian Consumer Law they are responsible for providing a refund.

atrielienz,

Because the only reason Sony is pulling these shows is because the license holder is demanding they do so. The license holder is WB. They are who Sony paid in order to provide you with a license to enjoy whatever media you bought. They are not reimbursing Sony to give you a refund.

SeemsNormal,

That sounds like a Sony problem to me. Who ever I paid, gives me the refund. If they have to go get it from someone else, that’s their problem.

atrielienz,

But per the agreement you the customer signed when you bought your license to enjoy that media it is not legally Sony’s problem.

forbes.com/…/playstation-is-deleting-tv-shows-pla…

This happens just about every single time a license holder pulls their stuff from any online service. It’s happened with all the big names. Spotify, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. there’s always a major outcry about it but usually it’s not the service itself but the license holder who is at fault. My view is we should start holding them accountable.

krakenx,

The credit card company might agree to a chargeback, but then Sony will ban you and block access to the rest of the content you bought.

atrielienz,

They can’t agree to do a charge back unless you bought it really recently (within 120 days of purchase), and then only if you can prove you didn’t receive the item in question which you did.

yetAnotherUser,

Since we’re sharing YouTube videos around, I suggest this video by Jeff Geerling about how to legally own and stream media (Piped link)

flop_leash_973, (edited )

In the US, he is still breaking the law ripping discs. It is against the DMCA to circumvent the DRM on the discs. So he is really just pirating by a different means as far as the industry is concerned.

He is far less likely to get caught doing it that way though.

atrielienz,

“People’s store-bought DVD collections are always copy-protected or DRM-ed. In 2006, the U.S. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which made it illegal to circumvent DRM (Digital Rights Management) protection on DVDs. This means that it’s illegal to create a software program that can bypass DVD DRM protection. Another way of saying it is, the moment you crack DRM to rip the DVD, you’ve violated the DMCA.

However, the DMCA contains an exception for “fair use.” This means that you can legally rip a DVD for personal use, as long as you don’t violate any of the other copyright laws. What does this mean in practice? You can rip a DVD for your own personal use, but you can’t distribute the ripped file to others. You also can’t make a copy of the ripped file for someone else.

So, in a nutshell, if you rip DVD’s and restrict the copies to your own personal use, you’re probably safe.”

videoconverterfactory.com/…/is-it-legal-to-rip-dv…

Aceticon,

Yupes.

Their trickery was to make the distribution of “circunvention software” the illegal part, so that common people would be unable to exercise their fair use “rights”.

Per that Law “anybody” can legally exercise their “fair use” rights so long as they have the technical expertise to code themselves the software to do so since per the very same Law nobody can distribute said tools.

So the Law de facto makes it illegal for everybody but a fraction of a percent of people who know how to code that specific kind of thing to rip their own DVDs.

In practice the only way to exercise one’s fair use “rights” is if somebody else has broken the Law and distributed a tool to allow those who do not have quite a rare set of expertises and lots of time in their hands to code their own tools, to exercise said “right”.

This is one of the slimiest Tech-related Laws ever passed.

voodooattack,

My favourite: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

An illegal prime is an illegal number which is also prime. One of the earliest illegal prime numbers was generated in March 2001 by Phil Carmody. Its binary representation corresponds to a compressed version of the C source code of a computer program implementing the DeCSS decryption algorithm, which can be used by a computer to circumvent a DVD’s copy protection.[14]

flop_leash_973,

“Probably” being the operative word there. The MPAA could still sue you into third world poverty to prove a point even if you end up winning the case.

atrielienz,

The only reasons they would be aware of this to sue you would be if you or someone else told them. The likelihood of that is pretty much nil unless you do something that is illegal (like selling ripped media), in which case they’re more likely to just come after you for that.

loki_d20,

What I love about this whole thing is that it’s not just Sony’s fault but they’re getting all the blame because WB would pull all their future content if Sony bad-mouthed them.

Aceticon,

It’s not the responsability of Customers to make sure what Sony’s chosen contractual relationships elsewhere are - Sony can engage in whatever contractual relationships it wants in whichever way it wants (and thus maximize their profits), but if it breaks their side of contract it has to pay the penalties for it, quite independently of why.

This is how Contract Law is designed exactly because otherwised it would make it impossible to Trade: if a purchaser had to track all contractual relationships of each supplier, then as those too were linked to the contracts of their own suppliers, of the supplier of the supplier and so on. So Contract Law neatly isolates each Contract relationship from all the rest and legal responsability starts and stops at that Contract (including the implied Contract in a Retail Sale) and only betwee the parties of that Contract unless very explicitly stated otherwise in the Contract.

So, have customers in this case entered into a Contractual Relationship where Sony gets to pull the plug whenever it feels like for any reason (which are probably invalid contractual conditions for retails customers in plenty of countries, though probably not the US which has near-zero consumer protections) in which case the problem is of the customers, or have they not in which case Sony is the one with the responsability (probably of refunding their customers) and it’s up to Sony to exercise whatever contract clauses they had with WB and claim compensation from them for their own breach of contract, if Sony had such clauses in their contract (if not, it was their own choice, so tough luck)?

Throwaway4669332255,

Sony choose to not offer refunds. Sony knew the contract when they agreed to sell the content. When something gets pulled from steam I can still download and install it.

atrielienz, (edited )

How much of that money is theirs to refund? A portion of that sale went to WB? Why is WB not being asked to give a refund?

Aceticon,

Sony entered in a contractual relationship with their customers and by Law the responsability ends there.

If you pay somebody to build you a garden shed and after 5 months of nothing happenning you complain and the builder can just say “sorry, the fly-by-night wood supliers whe paid for the wood just took of with our money, so you’re not going to get a shed and we’ll keep your money”, is that’s alright?!

Imagine what would it do to Trade and Business in general if any supplier could legally screw a customer over because they themselves chose to to engage a fishy entity as their own supplier who screwed them, so they just passed on that loss legally to all their costumers.

No, the way things work is that each contractual relationship is isolated from all others, so Sony got full freedom to chose what kind of contract they signed with WB and what contract they “signed” with their retail customers (note that retail sales are implied Contracts and there are legally mandatory implied clauses in any contracts with retail customers, covering for example legally mandated guarantees periods) - likely profiting a lot by chosing the short-term commitment with WB rather than one that tied WB for, say, 20 years - and any mismatch of obligations that might arise from that is entirelly the responsability of Sony.

Sony got to keep the profits from their own choices of licensing contracts and now it’s up to them to make up for the losses derived from the consequences that choice, on other contracts were they themselves were acting as the supplier.

atrielienz, (edited )

You should go read the licensing agreement. For all the companies, not just Sony because like I said before they all have done this. WB would sue Sony into the ground for breech of contract if they didn’t remove those shows. They’re doing what they are legally obligated to do. I’m not advocating for letting sony off the hook here. I’m saying this will continue to happen every time a license holder decides to cut out the middleman and make their own streaming service, and unless you hold those license holders accountable it will keep happening because it is legal.

This has happened to date with Sony at least once before, Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, and at least half a dozen other streaming services. Nobody ever wants to hold the supplier liable. And your apology analogy doesn’t work. The people got their streamed media. The product was delivered. The license to enjoy that media was for an unspecified time, which has now come to an end because the license holder of that media has decided they don’t want you to have it in that form anymore. They’re the bad guy here. In the event that you say bought physical discs, and they were never delivered because shortly after you made your order, the company you bought from lost the right to sell them they would refund you because they themselves would be refunded when they sent all that physical media back to the supplier. But in this case that’s not what’s happening. So it’s not a one for one analog.

Aceticon,

Ultimatelly it depends on the local laws of each country.

In plenty of countries, in Agreements with Retail Customers, there are by Law various things which if present in the Agreement are considered invalid hence null and void. Also there are mandatory “clarity” and “upfront” criteria for certain kinds of Agreements terms.

So not only would Sony have to have in the User Agreement a clause or clauses covering the possibility that purchased viewing rights might be unilaterally withdrawn at any time by Sony, it would have to be in a form considered legally valid in a Legal Jurisdiction (i.e. such clause has to be valid and it has to obbey local regulations on clarity and proeminence and in an User Agreement which is actually valid (EULAs are not valid in most of the World because they are only presented post-sale).

Of course in the “Fuck You Plebes” United States, pretty much everything goes - unless proven otherwise after somebody spent millions in a court case - so an obscure clause in an EULA de facto suffices in pretty much all but the State were Sony America has its HQ.

atrielienz,

There is. That’s what I’m telling you. The agreement between the customer and Sony stipulates that the license can be revoked by the license holder at any time and in that case their purchases will not be reimbursed. That language is there specifically to protect them.

But either way you’re failing to take the main point into account which is that WB is not facing backlash for this, but Sony is. Both of them should face this backlash together.

“SONY grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license to use the SOFTWARE solely in connection with your compatible device (including, but not limited to, SONY’s products which the SOFTWARE is embedded in or bundled with) (“DEVICE”) solely in accordance with this EULA and the usage instructions as may be made available to you by SONY or the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS. SONY and the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS expressly reserve all rights, title and interest (including, but not limited to, all intellectual property rights) in and to the SOFTWARE that this EULA does not specifically grant to you.”

The license is revoked and is not transferable. Believe me when I say that none of the companies that have had this issue previously have reimbursed their customers in any countries that I can find due to riders like this.

This is an article from the last time this happened with Sony.

pcmag.com/…/studio-canal-movies-purchased-on-play….

Aceticon, (edited )

TL;DR summary: WB had a contract with Sony, both of which have expensive legal teams and knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, so Sony knowingly chose the cheaper option (a shorter lock-in of the right to make that content available). Sony had contracts (implied and possibly with an agreement, part or all of which might not even be valid in various legal jurisdictions due to Consumer Protection Legislation) between legally-well-armed Sony and zero-legal-knowledge retail customers which, at minimum was portrayed by Sony in so unclear terms (at worse, purposefully to deceive) that said zero-legal-knowledge retail customers thought they were buying something when contractually it was a rental. How exactly would WB - who negotiated with a legal expert counterparty who knew exactly what they were doing - to blame rather than Sony - who took advantage of the legal naivity of retail customers and quite possibly is leveraging the high costs of legal action against them so as not to have to refund said customers? The legally expert and very well funded counterparty - Sony - taking advantage of a non-expert and much less well funded counterparty - retail customers - seems a vastly most likely place for shennennigans than the one between two well funded companies with their own legal experts, Sony and WB.

Sony chose to sign a contract with WB where it did not lock-in WB to certain responsabilities for a large time period - say 20 years - and instead chose a shorter time period (which both Business 101 and Asset Pricing Theory indicate as a cheaper option - locking-in certain rights contractually tends to cost more the longer the lock-in period) and per what you say, covered its liability on the client side with clausules in the user licence agreement that essentially meant they could take away any content their customer purchased.

Even putting aside the legality of those clauses and of the EULA itself (if* it was presented to the client after the client paid, it’s legally deemed is void and null per the legislation in most of the World because it’s considered an attempt at changing the terms of a contract after it has been closed), I don’t see which WB is to blame for Sony having chosen a contract length in their agreement with WB that did not guarantee that Sony’s own clients would not be removed access to the digital media they had been led to believe they bought.

It seems to me that WB had a contractual arrangement with Sony (NOT with Sony’s client’s) with which Sony agreeded (and, having lots of expensive lawyers, it can hardly be claimed that Sony did not fully understood the implications of that contract) and they fullfilled their end of the contract, whilsy Sony on the other hand had a contractual relation with retail customers (which are not expected to be anywhere as good in understanding the ins and outs of that contract as Sony’s Lawyers) and which led many if not most of the retail clients to believe they had purchased something which was not in fact sold and if the EULA was only presented to said retail clients after they paid, it wasn’t even backed by a valid contract.

It seems to me that it was Sony that deceived their clients and (if having done so purposefully, it might amount to Fraud, something a Court Of Law would have to rule on), possibly using clauses which are invalid when used with retail clients or not making it sufficiently clear to said retail clients that the nature of the transaction was not a sale but a rental for an indetermined period (both of these depending very much on the legislation of country that retail client is based) and possibly using means that are not even a valid contract in most jurisdiction (i.e. an EULA which is presented post-payment).

In summary, the WB-Sony contract was between two sets of legal experts of big companies, hence both knew perfectly well what they were getting themselves into, whilst the Sony-Retail_Customer contract was between one set of legal experts and individuals most of which with no legal expertise at all and no access to cheap enough legal expertise to analyse all such contract, and which further, had clauses going against several consumer protection laws in several countrues and possibly (if they did it by that order, which I don’t really know) using an EULA presented to the customer after the sale, something which is null and void in contract terms in most of the World because it’s an unilateral attempt at forcing a change in contract terms after the implied contract of the sale has been closed.

How exactly does it make sense to conclude that its WB - the guys that entered into a clear contract with a legally well advised counterparty - who are to blame, rather than Sony who seem to at the very least misportrayed the nature of the sale they were making to retail costumers (who are not legal experts) possibly using means which aren’t even valid under contract law or due to customer protections?

I mean, I can see how you can claim that Sony’s actions were within their contractual terms with the Retail Customers (especially in the Fuck-You-Pleb US with its nearly non-existent consumer protections) so maybe it is all legal, but blaming WB who had a contractual relationship with Sony, who most definitelly have the lawyers to make sure that contract was exactly as they wanted to is ridiculous - Sony absolutelly had the power to pay more and get a contract with WB which, say, would guaranteed that media sold to consumers by Sony would remain available forever and only new sales would stop at the end of a certain period if WB did not renew the contract, they just chose not to pay more and rely on the expectation that they could screw their own retail customers who would be de facto unable to be compensated because of the cost of pursuing a legal case against Sony to get that compensated.

atrielienz, (edited )

Did you take into account that WB just merged discovery with HBO which means those shows will more than likely be on the HBO streaming platform which is why WB is not renewing Sony’s licensing agreement?

Those terms (EULA) are included at least twice. The first time when you set up a Sony system such as a PlayStation, and again when you download a streaming app, and again once you decide to purchase something. So there is no “it only showed up after a consumer paid” excuse here. Meaning When these consumers downloaded the discover app they agreed to WB’s TOS or EULA.

You don’t have any proof that they chose a legal contract that was cheaper or that the specified time limit was Sony’s rather than WB’s. You make a lot of assumptions here.

www.playstation.com/…/psn-terms-of-service/

www.playstation.com/…/psn-terms-of-service/

ign.com/…/hbo-maxs-cut-content-to-shift-to-other-…

nofilmschool.com/warner-bros-deleting-purchased-d…

Disney did this same thing before they launched Disney+. Paramount and other license holders have done the same.

Aceticon, (edited )

Whatever is happenning on the WB side is irrelevant as their contractual obligations to Sony passed to the merged company.

Sony made a business were they leased long term to retail costumers something they themselves were renting on short term renewable contracts and, worse, misportrayed it to so said retail customers would confuse a lease with a sale. It’s not the fault of those renting stuff to Sony who chose not to renew the rental to Sony, that the business and contractual structure Sony put in place resulted in the consequences of a non-renewal of the rental being passed fully to the retail customers of Sony who, worse, were not in any way, form or shape, compensate for it by Sony.

Sony put in place this commercial structure, knew the risks and structured it all ol that it passed them fully to retail customers without making those risks clear to said retail customers, quite the contrary. Sony profited before the risks materialised and passed on the consequences to their retail customers fully and without compensation when they did materialise.

It’s not the blame of the guys upstream who were loaning something to Sony on short term contracts that Sony chose to lease that something long term to retail customers in a way that would cause many to confuse it with a sale and that at the end of the loan contract between those guys and Sony, the latter fully passed the consequences of it, without compensation, to their retail customers.

At best, if you want to find blame beyond Sony, look at the politicians that made the Laws that allow Sony to get away with doing what would otherwise be deemed fraud and in their otherwise-fraudulent business model made sure the predictable negative consequences of the end of any rental agreements upstream, to Sony, would fall entirelly on the shoulders of retail customers.

Son_of_dad,

They’ve done this to me. When it first came out,I bought the fallout 4 DLCs. I cleared my email one time and deleted all those old purchase receipts.

One day last year, I pop in fallout 4 and go to my file, and it says that I don’t have the dlc that corresponds to this save file. I know I bought them, so I go to the psn to redownload, but it’s asking me to pay. Long story short, I call Sony, my dlc purchase vanished at some point, and since I deleted the receipt, Sony refused to give me the content or money. They say I can’t prove I owned it, even though my files say so.

BlueDwaggin,

Anecdotal, I had the same with EA. When Origin first launched, the two games I had in my EA account disappeared. Do amount of battling with their support got me anywhere, even though I had the retail copies and the serial keys.

Got to the point where I gave up. Rather play games I actually wanted to play, to than Spore and The Sims 3.

Tathas,

Spore had itself a 3 or 5 installs limit before not allowing you to install it anymore.

wewbull,

So they stole from you and experienced no repercussions. Great story. I hope that you’ve at least stopped buying other titles from them.

BlueDwaggin,

I couldn’t care less about the two games, and fighting on principle seemed like too much effort at the time.

But yes, I’ve not bought an EA game since.

moitoi,

No credit card receipt? It might help.

PullUpCircuit,

Banks will charge for record searched, FYI.

RatherBeMTB,

Sony understands only one language… MONEY. I stopped buying their products since they installed a root kit decades ago in my computer to prevent it from ripping my legally bought CDs to my computer. I had to reinstall windows to get rid of that virus. Never again! And all my electronics were Sony back then

speaker_hat,

They do something similar on their smart TVs - it’s not possible to run Kodi with torrent streaming plugins, they block it on purpose.

gila,

How is it blocked? Could you work around it with a debrid service? i.e no torrent protocol

speaker_hat,

I didn’t further investigated it, however I remember that the Kodi remote app port worked, but the torrent streaming port (Elementum specifically) didn’t.

While on the Xiaomi Mi Box S it worked.

Tygr,

Hey, just wanted to say I’m glad a few of us remember the rootkit fiasco. I still won’t buy Sony products today.

RootBeerGuy,
@RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Yeah, fuck those rootkits. Despicable.

Nightwind,

Same here. This was such a hostile move I never bought anything “Sony” after that.

Killer_Tree,

Don’t forget the “fix” Sony offered after they were initally caught was an even MORE invasive rootkit. 🫠

FauxPseudo,
@FauxPseudo@lemmy.world avatar

A) which CD did you buy that had the Sony rootkit? B) decades ago? No. It’s only been 18 years.

raynethackery,

Sarah McLachlan, Surfacing. Shout out to Mark Russinovich for exposing it.

luthis,

Kinda slightly sensationalist title but yep…

We are having a good discussion about this in AskLemmy: lemmy.nz/post/3983363

“What is the legal difference between owning digital and physical media?”

As a side note, how are we going with instance agnostic post IDs? I can only post a link that uses my home instance, but obviously most of you won’t be on lemmy.nz and will have to do some fuckery to open that in your home instance if you want to be able to comment.

poopkins,

Thank you for contributing to the discourse.

The majority of comments in this community are at the level of a 12-year-old, offering no insight whatsoever, with snarky remarks like, “doesn’t affect me, arr,” “just sail the high seas,” with even the title appending “piracy is justified.” That’s terrific for all those commenters, but I had hoped that the comment section here in a technology community on Lemmy would be more sophisticated than my high school class.

TheGreenGolem,

Fortunately Sync just redirects to a link on my home instance. I know I saw a GH issue on what you mentioned but I haven’t checked it in a couple of months.

Edit: found it. Still in discussion phase. github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2987

luthis,

Ah thanks, we’re still waiting.

Reminds me I should check in on the merged communities process. Federation at the community level instead of/also at the instance level would be awesome.

dannym,

There are two proposals (github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2987), one for a syntax specific to comments which would make your link the following:

@lemmy.nz (it might already work in some frontends, but it most likely won’t yet)

and the second is using standard web technologies to register handlers for lemmy and then linking to posts like so (using my instance as an example):


<span style="color:#0086b3;">navigator</span><span style="color:#323232;">.registerProtocolHandler(</span><span style="color:#183691;">"web+lemmy"</span><span style="color:#323232;">, </span><span style="color:#183691;">"https://lemmy.escapebigtech.info/search?q=%s"</span><span style="color:#323232;">, </span><span style="color:#183691;">"Lemmy cross-instance link handler"</span><span style="color:#323232;">)
</span>

which would take you to the search page where your instance will show you the post on your own instance.

I personally think the best way is something in between, or rather implementing both

luthis,

I prefer the simplicity of the first option but it’s good to see progress

lemann,

As a side note, how are we going with instance agnostic post IDs

Tapping it works fine on my app, redirected to the post on my instance 👌 although I believe the situation is still pretty awkward for desktop frontends, they need to put the link into the Search box to open it on their instance AFAIK

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • All magazines