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

411–420 of 472 posts

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

#411

Post by jjav »

Reason077 wrote: post #368
apparent wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lawsuit would have to prove that Sony didn't abide by it's T&Cs, which it seems like they may well have. The issue then is whether it's OK to have T&Cs that seemingly conflict with the "buy" characterization that customers are presented with.

Just because something is written in T&Cs doesn’t make it okay. Consumer laws have precedence over T&Cs.

They should I agree, but consumer protection has been decimated in the US. Also the CFPB has effectively been dismantled. All is fair game as long as the oligarchs get a few more millions they don't need.

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

#412

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

IAmBroom wrote: post #224
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Walmart sold you a lawnmower, but you had to leave the lawnmower in their store, would you consider it your property just because they let you start it up and hear it rumble? If you wouldn't do that for Walmart, why would you do it for Sony?

That's a truly weird analogy.

It's a truly weird scenario... why would you consider it property when it resides on another person's computer?

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

#413

Post by afiori »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #412
IAmBroom wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a truly weird analogy.

It's a truly weird scenario... why would you consider it property when it resides on another person's computer ?

I think many companies believe they own their cloud hosted DBs

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

#414

Post by jjav »

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…

> Revocation should come with full refunds.

If I buy, say, a shovel and the hardware store sends someone to break into my house and steal the shovel back, hopefully they'd get arrested for the crime.

We should not be treating digital purchases any different. If I bought it, I bought it. It's mine forever.

But the oligarchs will never let that happen. So, in practice, always buy either the physical media or at least a DRM-free digital copy in an open format that you can save in your hard drive and play forever just like you can with a physical copy.

If neither of those are available I'd recommend just not buying. Or rent it for a one-off viewing with the full understanding that it is a one-off rental, priced accordingly.

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

#415

Post by jjav »

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

> We can enact any law we want

And the government is free to ignore all the laws, as witnessed by 2026 in the US.

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

#416

Post by raxxorraxor »

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…

In my opinion an ethical and moral permission for piracy regardless of law and small prints. Although in case of the latter, these are not valid in many countries with basic consumer protection anyway (doesn't make piracy a lawful response, but still). And I think in these cases it would be worthwhile to remind Sony about necessary compensation.

Their licensing issues aren't the problem of the buyer.

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

#418

Post by crest »

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…

Revocation should include inflation compensation to make it always a loss for the revoking party. That they won’t have an incentive to cheat by „selling“ movies without having a perpetual license to sell to the buyer.

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

#419

Post by throw101010 »

apparent wrote: post #399
throw101010 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I said "a decent chance that's as good as buying the thing". I didn't think I would need to quote more of your message, its essence is that you think these kinds of licenses *can be* "as good as buying" when they demonstrably have never been close to it... and it's by design. > If these mega companies stick around and continue to offer access to the content, then it is as good as buying it (arguably better if you d…

> I didn't think I would need to quote more of your message, its essence is that you think these kinds of licenses can be "as good as buying" when they demonstrably have never been close to it... and it's by design. You cut out a key part of what I said. When people do that, I don't read the rest of their really long replies. Good day.

It is not a key part, I asked you multiple questions to clarify the side of your hypothetical ("if") in which these companies supposedly would act in a way they never have (sell anything close to permanent access to content their customer paid for).

That's the part I've quoted, because that's the questionable part. You just have no argument to support this idea.

So good day to you too, please, next time take a couple minutes to read the OP to see that your suggestion/idea of how things could work is exactly the opposite of reality, by design, by (among others) the two companies you suggest are acting differently and have both had to settle class-action lawsuits for the same deliberate and anti-consumer behavior.

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

#420

Post by protimewaster »

rlpb wrote: post #362
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…

> Revocation should come with full refunds. That's not enough. If I purchase something, I expect to rely on being able to keep it. Its value to me could well be much higher than just the purchase price. Revocation should come with consequential damages together with the cost of recovering them.

I agree. I honestly think it's strange that it's often viewed as "good enough" to get a refund.

If I paid $5 for a movie, I did that because I want the movie more than the $5. If I didn't, I would've kept the $5. You giving me $5 and taking the movie away is just replacing the thing I value more with the thing I value less.

The other issue is that, if I paid $5 for a movie 10 years ago, that's now more than $5 due to inflation. If you give me $5 back, you're short.

Post reply on HN