this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
825 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
60129 readers
3662 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well whoever is taking them away should reimburse the clients if they were not made aware that they didn’t own the show but were just renting it.
These behaviors are dangerous and shouldn’t be legal. You press « buy », you own the product, not the right to watch it for a few years.
Slowly turning the whole world into pirates…
disingenuously points to the indecipherable ToS
and that's why it should be illegal, the big "buy" button ahould have higher precedence over any "renting" claims in the ToS and any attempt of misrepresentation should be fined.
Thanks for pointing that out, it is Discovery's decision. For their part though, Sony is still at fault as they didn't demand perpetual use rights for content sold on their store, or at least a full refund for the customer.
This. Offer a refund. Discovery caused the problem, but Sony enabled it.
Sony isn't in a position to demand refunds, though. Discovery pulling their content means there's no negotiation happening.
As for demanding perpetual use rights, yes, that'd have been nice, but that wouldn't have been granted and then that content wouldn't have been in the store at all. No company will ever sign an agreement to license their content in perpetuity like that.
That's the crux of the issue with digital content. When it was physical media, companies had no choice but to release their media with perpetual licenses because there was no means of revoking it later. They weren't compelled into doing this, they had to because the only other option was not releasing that media at all. Digital content has removed this issue for them, and they have no reason to ever willingly go back to the old method of content distribution.
This is something that has needed regulation for a very long time. If there's no incentives for companies to do something, it won't happen, unless they're forced to do it.
No company should ever buy the rights to something if they aren't willing to provide a proper consistent experience to the user.
In the case of streaming services where you pay an ongoing subscription, specific content being removed is fine. In the case of a store where the user is presented with the idea that they are "buying" the content, being able to view that content in perpetuity should always be expected. Sony is to blame for not requiring this.
They don't have to keep access to the content for new purchases forever. If Discovery wants to pull their content so anyone who hasn't already paid for it can access it, fine. But if they're able to say "you paid for this already, but too bad", Sony and Discovery are both equally to blame and deserve the harshest criticism.
This is absolutely Sony's fault. Sony owns the platform, Sony took the money, Sony signed the terms and agreements with Discovery that let them pull the content users paid for.
I blame Discovery too, but you're right that Sony is to blame. They have an army of lawyers to go over the terms of the agreements. The buyers don't. When I push the button that says buy, that should mean I own it. Not that I'm renting it for some unspecified period of time.
The absolute minimum they should be doing here is refunding everyone's money in full.
In full? So the period where the content was accessible is valueless? Pulling the licenses is bullshit, but a full refund is equally asinine.
If Hyundai Kicks down your door down and takes your car. They don't get to say 'Well it was worthless per (depreciation math they made up)."
The retractors reneged on a contract that they had already performed from. When you pay for a product and then the salesman takes it back from you months later that's called theft. They just legalized piracy.
Yes, in full. Even Google did that when they shut Stadia. If you're a big company this is the cost of business. Even if it's just in store credit or whatever, wouldn't even cost them much.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This is true. People like to complain, but I'm sure somewhere in the TOS this was stated that you don't own it... Still a bad move to pull the content but I agree should not be full refund.
I get that people don't like paying for things. I don't mind paying, but I make myself aware of what I'm paying for. CONVENIENCE... Don't spend your money on bad platform's and services people. If you don't like how the business model of that company is, don't give them your money. Vote with your wallet.
It's not realistic to expect the average user to read and/or understand the TOS when making a purchase like this. The button that you click says buy, not rent until we decide your rental period is over. Shouldn't matter if it's stated in the TOS somewhere.
As far as not spending money on bad platforms, thats what this community is about. All the platforms are proving that they are bad.
My issue is the first line of your comment, that it's not realistic for the average user to read and or understand the TOS. You should not use the product if you have not done this. Period. And if you choose to not read and understand, then there is no more discussion to be had... Makes sense?
This is the Playstation TOS.
This is the definition of buy.
Expecting a normal person to read this entire document and realize that they changed the definition of buy about 3/4s of the way down from the dictionary definition is completely unreasonable. Read the entire TOS and list all the gotchas, without knowing which ones they are going to pull, then tell me what makes sense.
But you're proving my point, it's in the TOS... As I've mentioned in other relies, yes the wording should be changed, but it is there... Reasonable or not it's s in the fine print.
If you do not agree to those fine prints, do not agree to the TOS. You clicked or accepted somewhere at some point, so you do/did agree to this. If you do/did not, why did you accept the TOS in the first place?
I'm trying to drill home that just because you think it's shady, I do too, does not mean you did not agree to it in the first place.
Do not click accept if you do not accept a TOS.
The problem as I see it is a violation of expectations. If I "buy" something, there is no expectation that I will be deprived of that thing in the future unless, (A) it's a consumable and I e used it up, (B) it's capable of wearing out and I've done that myself, (C) it's a subscription service where you pay for the time You've used it.
In the case of digital assets that I've been sold, it can't be used up and it can't wear out. I did not subscribe to the digital asset, I bought it.
Violating the expectation of a purchase and then not fully making the buyer whole is trying to change the transaction type to a subscription after the fact.
If the digital content providers want to pull these kinds of tricks, then they can't tell us we are buying the content. They must be up front and tell us it's a rental whose length is undetermined. The rental may be for our whole lives, or not.
Anything else is a bait and switch and makes people angry.
I fully agree the wording should be 'rent'. I know when I use a digital service, I do not own these things, but have access to them via the TOS I agreed to. It's definitely shady to word it as 'buy' though, but that's what physical media if for... Again going back to the convince argument, if you want to own something tangible, buy physical.
Yep. These arguments get at a problem I have with a lot of the piracy community. Which is not paying for the movie, but still watching it just shows the rights holders that there is a demand for the product.
If people want the DRM BS to end it would be far more effective to not pay for it AND not watch it. Companies would do a rethink surprisingly fast if money and engagement with their products fell off a cliff.
But that requires sacrifice and inconvenience to the consumer, and consumers have a pathetic amount of resolve when it comes to doing something uncomfortable now for a better outcome later.
Sacrifice! Perfect way to put it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Who cares if a show is good if the production/distribution company is evil, don't contribute to the stats. Ignore it and move on.
I don't care who's at fault for this massive scam
At best you could say Sony didn't know you thought you now own the car they were actually lending you. They probably spelt it out this could happen in their legal codex but that doesn't negate the fact they took your money or they made a system wherein they can deny you from using what you paid for. Sony takes part in this degeneration of ownerships.
If it's not something that lets you straight download and keep a native, non-drm video file, then you never owned it.
Just Max, not HBO Max. They changed the name because they literally planned on making it worse and didn't want it reflecting badly on the HBO brand.
No, it’s also Sony’s fault for not making a contract that says “bought means bought forever”. Sony isn’t making contracts like that where they can get screwed over later. Just making them that way when it affects you.
This is what I wrote on the other thread about the same article. The question is, on what possible grounds are they allowed to revoke licenses for completed sales?
Someone in legal on Sony's side fucked up.
They should issue refunds. Whether they will or not though....
They will ALMOST CERTAINLY. But my point is this doesn't really help... Let's say a game I really like, I dunno Wreckfest (substitute you own idc) gets yanked from Steam. Here is my 24.99 EUR back. Okay fine, fair enough (it isn't but whatever), where can I buy the game again? Well REALLY you can't, you can either buy gamepass forever (Until it gets yanked from there again), or you can go and hunt down a rare an expensive Xbox physical release.
So have I been reimbursed for my loss? No, because the 24.99 is no substitute for the game I had and wanted.
In the case of Steam, something I bought was pulled from the store, but it's still in my library, and I can still redownload it. Even though it can't be found by people who didn't buy it anymore. This seems to be the general Steam strategy.
The only way to play Chronicles of Riddick (a really great game btw) is illegally by downloading it. I would happily pay money for the privilege, but there is no option for that.
Well yeah but that is hosted on various abandonware sites. If they defacto disown the rights of it, that is fair enough...