Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for physical media ownership

dervis.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#61

Post by Getchowned »

cube00 wrote: post #26

Sony's one sentence notice is pretty grim considering how much money they made from these sales (sorry licensing). From September 1, 2026, due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library. Thank you, PlayStation Store [1] At least in 2023 it was two sentences and then they somehow negotiate…

Thousands of dollars worth of games in some PSN accounts. Madness if this ever happens to games as well.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#62

Post by AnimalMuppet »

simianwords wrote: post #33
jgorn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to take a safe bet and guess that you are quite young. If you grew up in any past era where owning a physical 'thing' was the default, you naturally feel the inherent lack of ownership in a digital version of that same thing. If you grow up in a time of mega platforms that can give you almost all of a certain media type for a subscription fee, the idea of lining up at midnight to pay 3x that fee for one pla…

Would you be able to explain why you liked owning things that isn't already explained by my points 1) 2) 3) 4)? I'm guessing its just a feral fascination of owning a physical thing rather than an abstract thing which was my last point. But I think it is that but with a combination of limited supply - owning something even physical, if it is abundant, defeats the purpose.

>>> "owning tangible things is just nicer - there's no better way to put it

> Would you be able to explain why you liked owning things that isn't already explained by my points 1) 2) 3) 4)?

Your point 4 may have covered everything, but it didn't actually explain anything. So it's a bit unfair to be asking jgorn to explain, because you didn't actually explain either.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#63

Post by simianwords »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62
simianwords wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be able to explain why you liked owning things that isn't already explained by my points 1) 2) 3) 4)? I'm guessing its just a feral fascination of owning a physical thing rather than an abstract thing which was my last point. But I think it is that but with a combination of limited supply - owning something even physical, if it is abundant, defeats the purpose.

>>> "owning tangible things is just nicer - there's no better way to put it > Would you be able to explain why you liked owning things that isn't already explained by my points 1) 2) 3) 4)? Your point 4 may have covered everything, but it didn't actually explain anything. So it's a bit unfair to be asking jgorn to explain, because you didn't actually explain either.

I would guess its a bit unfair to call me young and then just repeat what I said instead of adding anything novel to the discussion

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#64

Post by cemdervis »

CharlesW wrote: post #41
functionmouse wrote: post #22

I don't like this sentiment. There's plenty of things you can hold but you don't really own. You're probably holding one right now!

[Deleted note about submitter editorializizing title]

For transparency: That was the previous title of the page. I since changed many things on that site and reworded some fluff. Cheers.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#65

Post by folkrav »

enos_feedler wrote: post #49
dijit wrote: post #37

In some cases, even if you hold it you don't own it. I tend to purchase a lot of blu-rays, in fact if I don't buy the movie on Apple iTunes then it's almost always the case that I buy the blu-ray; then once I have the blu-ray I go to the torrent sites and download a version of the movie. Why? Because I earn enough money that I feel like I have no excuse not to buy my media: but I also want it to be my media; and torr…

Why were you watching movies when you should have been setting up your apartment

Are you pretending like you just unpack non-stop for days whenever you move?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#66

Post by doginasuit »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #39
CodesInChaos wrote: post #7

Unfortunately many game disks only contain a downloader nowadays and you often need to bind them to an account to play. Plus the version on disk without updates is probably buggy. Baldur's Gate 3 Collector's edition is an example that has a disk, but isn't really any better than a Steam key. On the other hand you can back up a DRM free download, like the games on GOG, despite these being a purely digital download. So…

It's disgusting how a previously open platform for gaming (PC) was turned into what it's become with Steam. Young people either don't know or don't care that it used to be the norm to buy and install a game without a middleman "service".

That argument has been harder to make with time. A couple years ago I made the difficult decision to get rid of some old game copies. I wasn't realistically going to use them ever again, and the sentimental value for me is entirely about the memory, not the media. Part of my steam collection is nearly as old and it is on track to greatly outlast. It is also significantly easier to own and use in just about every aspect, even if it is technically just a revocable license.

Beyond that, Steam and the digital media model allowed a great many people to publish games that wouldn't otherwise have been able to publish games. It made the indie world of games possible. It also did more than anyone to bridge the platform gap between windows and linux.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#67

Post by brendoelfrendo »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55
cube00 wrote: post #26

Sony's one sentence notice is pretty grim considering how much money they made from these sales (sorry licensing). From September 1, 2026, due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library. Thank you, PlayStation Store [1] At least in 2023 it was two sentences and then they somehow negotiate…

I purchased it, and you're taking it away? Then either I didn't actually purchase it (despite the word appearing in the notice), or you're stealing it from me. Which is it, Sony?

The legal reality is that you probably purchased a license, tied to your PlayStation account, and revocable at any time for any reason. You don't buy a movie, you buy access to watch it as many times as you want during the period in which it is licensed to you. This is, of course, bullshit; this doesn't or can't apply to a physical DVD, or even a DRM free digital copy, so it is a measurable step backwards for consumers.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#68

Post by dijit »

protimewaster wrote: post #48
dijit wrote: post #37

In some cases, even if you hold it you don't own it. I tend to purchase a lot of blu-rays, in fact if I don't buy the movie on Apple iTunes then it's almost always the case that I buy the blu-ray; then once I have the blu-ray I go to the torrent sites and download a version of the movie. Why? Because I earn enough money that I feel like I have no excuse not to buy my media: but I also want it to be my media; and torr…

For what it's worth, if it was a PS4, they only require internet access the first time a Blu-ray is played. And, I don't mean the first time a specific Blu-ray is played, but the first time any Blu-ray video is played. My guess is that Sony didn't want to pay the licensing fees for every PS4, so, the first time you play a Blu-ray, it connects to Sony to get a license. From then on, you can play them without internet.

Doesn’t feel very reliable, the time I needed it- it didn’t work.

What happens when those servers go offline?

What happens if I reinstall the PS4?

Sony was the principle architect of Blu-Ray, if even they can’t build a system that comes with decryption keys then who can?

Blu-Ray players don’t have access to the internet, do they?

Also, yeah, my PC not working was part of the issue.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#69

Post by cube00 »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #67
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I purchased it, and you're taking it away? Then either I didn't actually purchase it (despite the word appearing in the notice), or you're stealing it from me. Which is it, Sony?

The legal reality is that you probably purchased a license, tied to your PlayStation account, and revocable at any time for any reason. You don't buy a movie, you buy access to watch it as many times as you want during the period in which it is licensed to you. This is, of course, bullshit; this doesn't or can't apply to a physical DVD, or even a DRM free digital copy, so it is a measurable step backwards for consume…

These content agreements would have end dates when they are negotiated so they should be required to disclose those at the time you "purchase your license".

If they renegotiate and extend the arrangement then update the UI with the new date.

Sony couldn't seriously believe they were going to be able to renew these licenses forever given how many streaming services are out there who need to fill their catalogues.

Instead it's better for sales to show a "buy" button with no date[1] so customers don't back out when they realise they'll be spending close to the retail purchase price to only rent it for a few years.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvJSpB9cb6Y

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#70

Post by carra »

brookst wrote: post #50
carra wrote: post #28

This article is quite right, but there's even more to it than that. Why should we need to hold ANY kind of relationship with the seller/provider of an article we bought? You certainly don't need a bookstore account to buy a paperback book. Nor do they get to keep your contact information. You get your article and a ticket. They get your money. End of story.

Goods / services. You probably need a relationship to use a warranty. The tension is that digital goods are somewhere between. Especially when the delivery mechanism is streaming, and/or DRM keys that need to be renewed. Sure, many people want a one-time download with no promise or obligation to re-deliver it in the future. Then again, many people don’t want the burden of caring for bytes for the rest of their lives…

> The tension is that digital goods are somewhere between.

That's the thing. If they are truly goods, they cannot be in between! Otherwise they are being handled as services and as such they will be terminated at some point. So unless we redefine the word, a true "purchase" can never depend on future actions from the provider (like renewing some DRM).

Post reply on HN