Live data from Hacker News

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

techdirt.com

311–320 of 472 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No renting of copyrighted works for money. The customer owns a copy or GTFO. That immediately destroys several useful and viable business models that actually work in that they provide more access to more creative work to more people while the rights holders also make a return. I am in favour of copyright reform but not of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

> That immediately destroys several useful and viable business models that actually work in that they provide more access to more creative work to more people while the rights holders also make a return. Does it though? The incremental revenue from customers renting something and then renting it again is going to be very small. The "loss" from providing them with a permanent copy instead would be a rounding error, es…

Does it though? The incremental revenue from customers renting something and then renting it again is going to be very small. The "loss" from providing them with a permanent copy instead would be a rounding error, especially for a product with no marginal cost.

It destroys the library model used by Spotify, Netflix, and all the other similar services for one example. Those are clearly not working on the same basis as selling permanent copies of everything you might want to listen to or watch. They clearly do make a lot of revenue from subscribers enjoying the long tail of music and programmes and often that includes repeats. Many more people enjoy many more works that aren't the big headliners under this model. People can also try something they might enjoy without committing to the cost of buying it and therefore don't have to feel bad if it's not for them and they give up after a few minutes. And yet obviously the subscribers individually spend far less in many cases than it would cost them to buy permanent copies of everything they'd listened to and watched. Given the popularity and financial success of the streaming services this is evidently an alternative model that works for both sides. So I would challenge your claim that the loss from always providing permanent copies is insignificant.

I don't really buy the other argument you're making either. With digital works there isn't much reason for a "second hand" market where copies would be significantly cheaper than a "new" copy direct from the supplier. When people used to trade used works on physical media there was a degree of degradation in those media that justified a price reduction. Why would someone who had bought a copy of the latest summer blockbuster sell it for 30% of its original purchase price if it's a flawless digital reproduction identical to a new one? Naturally this shifts the dynamics in the market and the price of buying a true permanent copy that can legally be sold on afterwards would tend to increase because of this effect. Meanwhile the library services I mentioned above work on almost the opposite basis and it tends to push the price per work accessed down because the subscribers aren't effectively subsidising other people who are enjoying identical works to themselves but without paying the original source anything to access those works.

I think there is demonstrably room enough in a world of billions of people with access to orders of magnitude more content than any of us could experience even once in our lifetimes for multiple economic models. What matters is that people get to create useful works and other people get to enjoy those works and the financial arrangements make this worthwhile for everyone. There are certainly flaws in the current copyright model that is established in most of the world. There are rights that I think people who have bought (or believe they have bought) permanent copies of works should enjoy with the force of law behind them if necessary.

I don't have a great answer yet to the problem of rights holders not wanting to make anything available permanently at all so that everyone is locked into some form of temporary arrangement. Clearly market forces haven't always sorted that one out effectively and some sort of adjustment is warranted. But I'm also wary of relying on some form of government regulation that distorts the market and potentially excludes arrangements that everyone actually involved might find worthwhile. Maybe you could somehow require that once any work has more than a certain number of licensed copies in circulation or has been available to a certain number of people from authorised sources for a certain (relatively small) number of years then it must also be available for sale as a permanent licence - regardless of any other continuing and still legitimate ways to access it from authorised sources - but with some recognition that a fair price to buy a permanent copy that comes with all the associated rights today might be significantly higher than what these things used to cost in the days when physical media were required.

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Plus interest

Plus interest makes no sense and is unnessary. Adjusting for inflation is so the person can buy the same movie at today's prices. At that point, the person is made more than whole already because they got to see the movie for free and they can chose to get it again.

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

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proliferation of copies economically devalues the originals.

Nobody has a right to have an economic value for what they sell. That is a special privilege, not a right, and harms everyone for the enrichment of the privileged

Nobody has a right to have an economic value for what they sell.

This is true. (It's true in every other industry as well.)

But the opposite side of that coin is that if you want people to spend the considerable amounts of time and money required to create new works that are actually any good then you need to have some viable model for compensating them that makes it worthwhile for them to do that. Whatever else you can say for it - copyright has been far more effective than any other model ever tried at the scale of human society in achieving that.

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

#314

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.

I've wondered how they'll draw the line on this. If Amazon or Apple has a buy button and it means you get to have ongoing access to the content for as long as Amazon/Apple is around, then for a 30 year old person there's a decent chance that's as good as buying the thing. But if it's hazier, as in the case of Sony's revocation based on losing rights in later years, then you're obviously not getting the same thing. Ho…

What makes you think that this is "as good as" buying when the original post itself demonstrate clearly that it's nowhere close to actually buying something?

Is there something in Apple or Amazon terms which say they can't under any circumstances deprive you of accessing the content you have bought with their "Buy" buttons? I don't see why you are trying to assign a difference between them and Sony here?

We have words like leases, licenses, or renting for a reason and they are not new.

The companies which shifted their business model to renting in the digital age have perpetuated the "buy" buttons to make their customers think the transaction was the same as when they purchased a physical media... but clearly, and it's by far not the first case, these companies will deprive their customers of their "purchase" for many reasons that shouldn't be any concern for someone who actually "bought" something... like the companies suddenly deciding to stop paying for the rights of the thing that they alledgly "sold" to you.

So just as clearly, theses were not actual purchases but just licenses, non-transferable, allegedly "perpetual" but unilaterally revocable at any time with no refund.

I really don't see why you seem to think there is anything hazy about this, or hard to delineate. This law seems to cover the cases in which these companies abuse the language in question, Amazon and Apple are not "selling" you anything digital, you acquire a pretty limited license on all of these services.

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

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet people have been “buying”games from Steam the same way for more than two decades…

First, I think people should buy from GoG for exactly this reason. But also, the difference is that Steam has as far as I can tell never yanked a game from someone's account and failed to refund them for it. Games either get delisted and you retain access to them or they're removed entirely and they refund you. The only exception is online-only games whose developer stops maintaining the server, but I think it's reas…

Has Sony yanked a game? I know they have delisted some but I have not heard of one ever being removed from a user’s library and couldn’t find a reported instance of that happening. Sony’s agreement with game publishers does not leave them the right to do this.

I do not think there is any online platform that can make such guarantees for movies.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of what I've always hated about consoles is the inevitable push toward an entirely new generation of hardware when the current hardware is more than capable. The best games I've played in the last year would run on a PS4 and probably even a PS3 with a little optimization, yet we're already at the "end" of the PS5. It's so disingenuous. We should be squeezing everything we can out of the wonderful hardware we hav…

The PC is worse in this regard since everyone's hardware is different. There's rarely much optimization going into PC games compared to consoles.

I don't think you really understood my point then, maybe I didn't make it clearly.

What I meant was we abandon perfectly good console hardware, not because it's outdated or obsolete, not because games demand the cutting edge, but because profit margins demand the consumer spend 500+ on new hardware every 5 years or whatever. It's nothing to do with the software and everything to do with shareholders.

The PC is the exact opposite of this.

There are no PC games that force you to buy a whole new device. There are games that your 5 year old PC might struggle with, but they're still compatible.

The top games on steam are mostly things that would run on 15 year old gaming rigs.

Backwards compatibility! I can still play games from decades ago on my current PC. On a console you're in luck if the game you played on the last generation is rereleased on the next one

You're not locked into a store, a network, or even an operating system.

It's true the AAA devs don't optimize much but my point is that Microsoft don't decide that you have to buy a new PC every five years and there are a bunch of new games coming out for it that are literally unavailable on your old one.

(Well ok technically they do exactly this but it's called an Xbox and it's a failure right now)

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I think people should buy from GoG for exactly this reason. But also, the difference is that Steam has as far as I can tell never yanked a game from someone's account and failed to refund them for it. Games either get delisted and you retain access to them or they're removed entirely and they refund you. The only exception is online-only games whose developer stops maintaining the server, but I think it's reas…

Has Sony yanked a game? I know they have delisted some but I have not heard of one ever being removed from a user’s library and couldn’t find a reported instance of that happening. Sony’s agreement with game publishers does not leave them the right to do this. I do not think there is any online platform that can make such guarantees for movies.

They've yanked movies, and there are reasons (which they won't tell us) they've banned physical delivery of games. It's extremely likely they will yank games in the future.

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has a right to have an economic value for what they sell. That is a special privilege, not a right, and harms everyone for the enrichment of the privileged

Nobody has a right to have an economic value for what they sell. This is true. (It's true in every other industry as well.) But the opposite side of that coin is that if you want people to spend the considerable amounts of time and money required to create new works that are actually any good then you need to have some viable model for compensating them that makes it worthwhile for them to do that. Whatever else you…

Copyright has generally been extremely effective at giving money to trillion-dollar companies while giving artists almost nothing. This incentivises companies to hire artists and churn out slop. It doesn't incentivise artists to make art. For that, something other than copyright is needed.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus interest

Plus interest makes no sense and is unnessary. Adjusting for inflation is so the person can buy the same movie at today's prices. At that point, the person is made more than whole already because they got to see the movie for free and they can chose to get it again.

If they are able to prove it somehow transparently that movie was watched at least once, reduce the amount of renting it based on the time when it was bought. Is that fair? Return the rest with inflation adjustments.
Post reply on HN