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

Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 472 posts

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#301

Post by ibejoeb »

card_zero wrote: post #299
ibejoeb wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws like that are just going to give rise to new tortured wording. You're buying a revocable license to view the content under certain conditions. It was already in that territory even with physical media; that's what region locking is. Likewise, if bitrot set in and your disc became unplayable, the distributor didn't send you a new one. You never had a perpetual, irrevocable, and otherwise unrestricted license to v…

What? "You never had a license" - no, of course not, that's not what buying is. You had a phonograph record or whatever, and it didn't get replaced when worn out in the same way that the shoe manufacturer doesn't replace your worn out shoes which you have bought. Region locking, what about it? It's interference with ownership too. Things you can buy have to be accurately described as what you actually get, so "buy th…

I get it, but your advertising to it what you want it to be, not what it is.

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#302

Post by k4rli »

anal_reactor wrote: post #215
FitchApps wrote: post #203

So the only "buy" option one has now is to torrent the movie? At least no one is going to delete the mp4 file.

The problem with torrents is that they naturally die when people lose interest.

If it's something worth watching, then very unlikely. 99.9% of movies/tv simply aren't.

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#303

Post by nemomarx »

Narishma wrote: post #294
nemomarx wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given recent price rises for console hardware I think they're struggling with that too though. The model doesn't work as well if the components get more expensive over time and not less?

But PC parts are also getting more expensive, so the difference is still there.

Yeah I mean specifically the "sell at a loss, wait for costs to get lower over the generation" thing. if it's at a loss at the start of the generation and component costs only rise, it'll still sell for a loss at the end but also it'll be more expensive for customers. this puts the company in a hard position. a lot of gamers are also used to waiting until the end of the life of a console and getting games used, which might no longer be an option

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#304

Post by wccrawford »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #247
inigyou wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they avoided having a "rent" button by using the technically correct "add to cart", "continue to payment" instead of "buy this game", "buy all games in cart", and just have a separate sentence in small grey text that is confusing to most people. Clearly this law needs to be worded harsher, so the button MUST say "rent" if you are renting.

> Clearly this law needs to be worded harsher, so the button MUST say "rent" if you are renting. No, there is a much better alternative. No renting of copyrighted works for money. The customer owns a copy or GTFO.

I wouldn't ban renting. Instead, perhaps we ban rentals of unspecified length.

The customer has to know what they're getting. Either they own it, or they're renting for a certain period. Nothing ambiguous.

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#306

Post by edm0nd »

ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #80
qingcharles wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California Assembly Bill 2426 (AB 2426), effective 1 January, 2025. Expands the state's false advertising laws to explicitly ban companies from using words like "buy," "purchase," "own," or "keep" if what the customer is actually getting is a revocable digital license governed by shady T&Cs.

Remember that the power is always with the people. We can enact any law we want

the power is not with the people (us) but with the people in power (corpos and politicians). We (they) can enact any laws we (they) want.

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#307

Post by Nevermark »

Revocation should come with full refunds.

That would:

1. Balance the revocation economically, for both parties, while leaving the decision to the "seller".

2. The trade becomes the time-value of money vs. the time value of access. Inherently fair. The seller nets interest, and the inflation drop on the original price. What an accountant would come up with, yet automatic.

3. Provide users the remunerative recourse for "resuming" their "perpetual" license with another provider.

4. Motivate the avoidance of revocations, as who wants to have anti-sales.

Maybe there are good reasons for revocations. Fine, but purchasers should not "Get" randomly screwed, while the seller who had control of their sourcing arrangements loses nothing.

"Get" instead of "Buy" does not address the problem. If "Get" requires the user to gamble, it should be "Gamble". "Get for five years" or "Get for 5 viewings" would be ok. But "Get" without a clear definition is inherently misleading. Another dark pattern.

(Also: By law, contracts must be something given for something taken. A one-sided uncompensated nullification-at-will option is a sneaky way around that. Companies that nullify without compensation, or less than full price where the licensing agreement made no refund amount declaration, should be required to return customer money with interest to reflect the bad faith contract. IANAL, just a believer in justice, especially where simple accounting provides answers.)

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#308

Post by matheusmoreira »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #179
papyrus9244 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws are great and all. But what we really need is a massive boycott. Stop buying shit manufactured or sold by Sony for a year. That alone will probably force them to backtrack every single anti consumer decision they've made recently.

For the love of god please understand 80% of people are trying to just get on day by day. They don't give a shit about any of this. They probably don't even realize it's happening. Some subset of them might be hit by this but most just don't care. The point of a government in society is for people who give a shit to guide this kind of thing.

No, I won't understand. These people who don't give a shit, they are the problem. They're the ones who finance these corporations and enable their abusive practices.

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#309

Post by dev_l1x_be »

Nevermark wrote: post #307

Revocation should come with full refunds. That would: 1. Balance the revocation economically, for both parties, while leaving the decision to the "seller". 2. The trade becomes the time-value of money vs. the time value of access. Inherently fair. The seller nets interest, and the inflation drop on the original price. What an accountant would come up with, yet automatic. 3. Provide users the remunerative recourse for…

Also they would need to adjust the refund it with inflation.

Re: Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them

#310

Post by thfuran »

dev_l1x_be wrote: post #309
Nevermark wrote: post #307

Revocation should come with full refunds. That would: 1. Balance the revocation economically, for both parties, while leaving the decision to the "seller". 2. The trade becomes the time-value of money vs. the time value of access. Inherently fair. The seller nets interest, and the inflation drop on the original price. What an accountant would come up with, yet automatic. 3. Provide users the remunerative recourse for…

Also they would need to adjust the refund it with inflation.

Plus interest
Post reply on HN