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

PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

kotaku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 235 posts

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#151

Post by tancop »

paxys wrote: post #77
kelvinjps10 wrote: post #46

I feel these license agreements have to be set up in such a way people that already bought their movies get to keep them, like okay Sony lost the licences and they shouldn't sell it to new customers but existing customers should get to keep their movies. Since companies don't care the government needs to force their hand and put it into law

The problem is that existing customers don't "have" anything. They stream the movie on demand from Sony's servers. And Sony can't keep the movie on their server anymore. The entire delivery model is broken.

[dead]

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#152

Post by tancop »

adrianwaj wrote: post #76
Devasta wrote: post #55

By not teaching the younger generations the virtues of piracy, millennials have failed them. It'll be all the more critical in years to come when we get more and more AI remastered versions of stuff so even stuff pre-2020 is slop.

I'm more cynical here. I suspect these are films (or many of them at least) are ones "they" don't want you to see... ever. It's censorship, so no remastering. "due to our content licensing agreements" ..so this is just Sony placating to someone else's demands. The question is who are "they" and why these films? Maybe these films end up being revised with alternate endings or tweaked characters. If you see these films…

[dead]

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#153

Post by davkan »

gorpigo wrote: post #127
nerdsniper wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jellyfin + Jellyseer + PassThePopcorn has served me and my friends/family well. I pay $50/mo now for a seedbox with 16TB but it serves 20 people. I would self-host for $0/month but my current apartment only has Xfinity, not AT&T and the upload isn’t enough to self-host. It’s less about the money and more about: 1) Having a single place to go for any TV show or movie. I found it very frustrating trying to figure out w…

How did you find your way into PTP? I’m in a few but PTP it sounds like they expect you to be a mass uploader. I’m and seeder but how would anyone even “find” me? Do I need to be involved in the forums of the private trackers I use today?

On most private trackers if you level up to Power User you unlock an invite forum where other trackers explicitly advertise with set requirements. No risky trading or begging, no need to participate in the forums at all, nobody “finds you”. You just send a dm once you meet the requirements.

Not too many years back you only needed to be Elite on the big music site to cop an invite to PTP in the forums. Now it’s TM there which is much more work but still obtainable.

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#154

Post by bob1029 »

nerdsniper wrote: post #8
thomasmarton wrote: post #6

Piracy is justified especially when it comes to movies! If I am buying a DVD, I own that copy regardless of the studio and the distributor being in legal trouble or not. If I "buy" or "purchase" something online, I expect the same thing. I'm not always a fan of the EU over-regulating some things but I feel like they should start fining companies who want to re-define the meaning of the word purchase

Jellyfin + Jellyseer + PassThePopcorn has served me and my friends/family well. I pay $50/mo now for a seedbox with 16TB but it serves 20 people. I would self-host for $0/month but my current apartment only has Xfinity, not AT&T and the upload isn’t enough to self-host. It’s less about the money and more about: 1) Having a single place to go for any TV show or movie. I found it very frustrating trying to figure out w…

I take advantage of AWS S3 for multimedia storage duty these days. My goal is to maintain stable access to content I enjoy without worrying about data loss or the burden of time it takes or maintain all the storage infrastructure.

If it costs me a little bit of money to store this information, I don't consider it to be "losing" the piracy game. I still have a lot of control and no one has a clue what I'm storing thanks to symmetric encryption, guid names and fixed chunk sizes. As far as Amazon is concerned, it appears as if I'm just running backups for some boring enterprise application.

Could Amazon take it all away tomorrow? Sure. But I've had an account with them since 2014 and something like this has never come up before. At worst, I'd expect a deprecation warning with a solid 12 months of time to figure out an alternative.

There is no way you are going to beat the durability of S3 at home. Durability seems to be ~the entire point here. At some level you need to consider which evil is the lesser evil, at least if you value your free time and the possibility of actually enjoying all this media you've spent so much effort acquiring.

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#155

Post by lmz »

riffraff wrote: post #128
Manuel_D wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct: it's copyright infringement, not theft.

But the point is the movie industry has been trying to tell us that it is stealing. "You wouldn't still a car" etc etc..

Stilling a car is what the brakes are for.

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#156

Post by tjpnz »

munk-a wrote: post #54
b112 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, 100%, and that end date should be very clearly listed too.

Oftentimes that end date is not clearly knowable and can't be communicated explicitly, but consumers should still be aware of the fact that their rights are limited. While the Gaben lives valve will store many people's games - when the Gaben dies... well, it's going to suck - but it'll probably take a while to completely suck, we'll probably go through drawn out enshittification first. This outcome seems inevitable[1…

If Valve continue to stay privately owned I've some confidence that the status quo will remain, regardless of whether Gaben's around. Enshittification is a feature of publicly traded companies and those owned by private equity.

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#157

Post by gblargg »

paradoxyl wrote: post #131
pico303 wrote: post #130

I found a local store that specializes in used movies on DVD, BluRay, 4K discs and video games from Atari to PS5. I’ve started picking up hard copies of everything so I’m (a) not tracked and (b) can’t have my stuff taken away.

I believe DVDs and Blu-Ray discs and players will increase in value over time, almost like samizdat printing presses -- underground video viewers that let us watch movies without the monolithic globalist corporate police state observing, penalizing, demanding identitification, and trying to extract an ounce of monopolist rentier blood.

What good is a disc player when your display... can't... show it? Can't have unauthorized computing devices connected to displays in the future.

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#158

Post by rcxdude »

Manuel_D wrote: post #64
danpalmer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is on the side of the distributor, not the end recipient.

For streaming yes, but downloads are still copyright infringement on the part of the downloader. An unauthorized copy is being made on the recipient's machine. It's true that copyright holders rarely pursue cases against individuals, and tend to focus on distributors though.

Has this line of argument actually held up in court, though?

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#159

Post by makeitdouble »

charles_f wrote: post #101
makeitdouble wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comparison makes no sense. When you buy a ticket to a concert you fully expect to be allowed access to said concert. If it gets cancelled because this or that studio owns some random right you fully expect to be refunded. You're explaining that while the ticket was a purchase, it had specific limitations and the vendor would follow a specific contract, with specific recourse for people in eligible cases. That'…

"Oh but they didn't read the fine prints so that's on them". What a great argument. To people, "buy" when in the context of a movie largely means owning the freaking thing. > we're past "the button said 'buy'" discussions. That's normalization of deviance. It's fine if you're fine with that scam, don't come onto people who aren't.

Thing is, changing what the button says doesn't change the fine prints nor the central issues.

A ton of stores just moved away from the "buy" language and replaced the buttons with "order", "add to cart", "pay" etc. Stores like Amazon kept the "buy" button while expliciting it's for a license. All the whining on the meaning of buying just went into word tweaking with no further effects.

We need to talk about digital licenses, it's complex and there's no simple answer, but IMHO we first need to get past what the button says.

Re: PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

#160

Post by basilikum »

makeitdouble wrote: post #98
charles_f wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever bought a ticket to a concert ? This comparison makes no sense. When you buy a ticket to a concert you fully expect to be allowed access to said concert. If it gets cancelled because this or that studio owns some random right you fully expect to be refunded. > I was already renting stuff when video tapes were a thing Good for you. These guys also propose rental with a rent button, and a purchase button…

> This comparison makes no sense. When you buy a ticket to a concert you fully expect to be allowed access to said concert. If it gets cancelled because this or that studio owns some random right you fully expect to be refunded. You're explaining that while the ticket was a purchase, it had specific limitations and the vendor would follow a specific contract, with specific recourse for people in eligible cases. That'…

> You're explaining that while the ticket was a purchase, it had specific limitations and the vendor would follow a specific contract, with specific recourse for people in eligible cases.

You bought a ticket that was advertised as a ticket for a concert and you got that. No one ever claimed or implied you were buying the musicians so they would perform the concert for you whenever you like.

When you 'buy' a movie in the way we are talking about here it is advertised and implied as buying the movie in the sense of owning a copy (or the right to access a copy) of the movie to watch whenever you want forever. What you get is more similar to an unlimited ticket to a cinema that allows you to watch that movie as long as it is shown in the cinema, but the cimema can decide to stop showing the movie any time. Unlike the concert ticket that is purposefully not clearly communicated (and the concert has a fixed service you purchase (one concert) unlike the movie ticket where the service you get is dependent entirely on the goodwill of the cinema)

Post reply on HN