8 ms·
It should be illegal to have others purchase what you as a company only licensed and therefore aren’t legally allowed to sell.
by 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 agoAgree... if they want to sell it, parent company must agree on forever licenses for each user. Regardless of reselling license getting cancelled.
- piltdownman 3mo agoThey 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...
- howard941 3mo agoWhen the debtor files bankruptcy ownership immediately moves to the bankruptcy estate. This supposed obligation to delete might be disclosable on the executory contracts schedule.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- noahbp 3mo agoPlenty 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.
- etempleton 3mo agoThey often have two tiers, a rental tier and a purchase tier. If you purchase the assumption is it will be available forever.
- dylan604 3mo agoSeems like a bad assumption at this point even if it goes against expectations. We've seen on multiple occasions now from different companies where a digital purchase wasn't forever. This is no way an endorsement of the behavior, but if that's your assumption then the quip "you know what happens when you assume" wins again.
- crote 3mo agoSo the default assumption should be that big companies are actively trying to defraud you? The difference between "rent" and "purchase" has always been very clear: with the former you have to give it back, with the latter you own it forever. It is only very recently that this kind of steal-back has even become possible at all, as it can only be done with digital content delivery to an entirely-closed platform. "You should assume that words have the opposite meaning and that big companies can steal from you with impunity" is a world I don't think I want to live in.
- dylan604 3mo agoWhether you want to or not, that's pretty much where we live now. A default position of "every company is trying to defraud me" is not a bad position to take. As you find out a company is less of a criminal, then you can relax your position, but if you go in relaxed and need to tighten up, you've probably already been screwed out of something. The "rent" vs "purchase" has never been different than it is now. Yes, purchase is a very deceiving word by design. The thing bringing it to the forefront is that they never were able to rip that physical product sold to you in the way they can with the digital product. That seems to have made people pay attention to the legalese that has always been there.
- 3mo ago
- 404mm 3mo agoI bet there’s a class action coming. And Sony made it easy for them too by using this verbiage: “previously purchased content”
- bilekas 3mo agoBecause they were purchases, not rentals. Under no circumstances would a customer reasonably assume that their purchase would be revoked for reasons completely outside of their control.
- mmh0000 3mo agoWhat's funny is that Sony has done this before![0] I've had a personal boycott against Sony products due to this. "The feature was controversially removed by Sony since system firmware update 3.21, released on April 1, 2010.[2] A class action lawsuit was filed against Sony on behalf of users, but was dismissed with prejudice in 2011 by a federal judge. The judge stated: "As a legal matter, ... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable."[3] However, this decision was overturned in a 2014 appellate court decision[4] finding that plaintiffs had indeed made clear and sufficiently substantial claims. Ultimately, in 2016, Sony settled with users who had installed Linux or had purchased a PlayStation 3 based upon the availability of OtherOS." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
- garciansmith 3mo agoYep. I had tons of Sony games across the first three Playstation consoles. I was a grad student with a PS3 at the time and I actually used Yellow Dog Linux on it as a computer to write papers when my laptop broke. Then the update came and I chose to ignore it, but that meant I couldn't play online games. Soon new games required a firmware update (still remember putting in the Dark Souls disc and being stunned I wasn't allowed to play it!). And with games it's just getting worse (Sony announced they won't make discs starting 2028; the Switch 2 takes carts but very, very few games release on a cart). If you care about control over the games you purchased, if you care about going back and playing older games, then the only choice is to use platforms that are DRM free. (Or, well, non-legal means.)
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3mo agoKinda. On Steam I can still play games I bought 18 years ago. Still walled garden, but they act way better.
- garciansmith 3mo agoTrue, but Steam still controls Steam and they can change their terms whenever they want. But for now it's ok, at least. And their hardware is happily open: I've played a bunch of games I got on GOG, DRM-free, on my Steam Deck, for example.
- xtracto 3mo agoIf buying is not owning, piracy is not theft.
- nekusar 3mo agoPiracy was never theft. It was a copyright violation. Which, I don't give one fuck about.
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoYeah. Copyright monopolists equate copyright infringement to literal high seas piracy because it's the only way they can make any impact. Nobody would give a fuck otherwise.
- nekusar 3mo agoAnd the OTHER copyright monopolists (Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, X) proved the rules don't apply to them with copyright. And then Anthropic publically bellyaches that "WAHHHH CHINESE ARE STEALING OUR STOLEN DATA WAH". Lemee get that worlds tiniest violin for that sonata! These days if you're following the rules, you're a rube and a stooge. And you will be taken advantage of again and again and again.
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoYeah. It's so disgusting. One would think dozens of SWAT officers would rappel down helicopters and storm the mansions of these big tech CEOs. Unpayable trillion dollar fines, actual prison time. Instead the AI companies reached some absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.
- smcin 3mo agoSounds like good fodder for a videogame though...
- 3mo ago
- throwaway87543 3mo agoStudio 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 agoThey'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 agoCorrect. 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 agoThey 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?