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

321–330 of 472 posts

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

#321

Post by maerF0x0 »

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…

A consumer friendly policy could be:

1. Proration for a "lifetime" access (87 years) denied. In many cases probably close to 90% refunded.

2. irrespective, a Full refund for those who had never viewed the purchase.

3. A refund equal to the purchase price on the streaming platform newly acquired. Or a lifetime access (87 years) of the monthly billed streaming platform.

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

#322

Post by maerF0x0 »

thx67 wrote: post #284
em500 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this type of legislation will have any kind of real world effect. Apple App store labels all their buttons with "Get". Google Play Store just prints the price on the button for paid apps/games.

How about if it doesn't say RENT, it means you own it and first sale doctrine applies. We can't let them weasel and wordsmith their way out of things.

or lease? or... There's probably a dozen words to mean that same word.

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

#323

Post by thx67 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #322
thx67 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if it doesn't say RENT, it means you own it and first sale doctrine applies. We can't let them weasel and wordsmith their way out of things.

or lease? or... There's probably a dozen words to mean that same word.

No outs, we need a controlled vocabulary.

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

#324

Post by maerF0x0 »

inigyou wrote: post #200
Retric wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Money, Votes, etc has value because the general public gives it value. All billionaires could be instantly broke if the general public decided they were broke. Votes are ultimately a method of control not an inherent power unto themselves. Societies have gotten really good at convincing people they don’t have power so it’s rarely exercised but it’s always worth remembering the difference between abstraction and t…

If I stop believing that money has value, men with guns will come to my house and force me out of it and change the locks. If they stop believing money has value (so they wouldn't want to come to my house), men with guns will come to their house, force them out of it and change the locks. This isn't a voluntary system, it's a forcibly imposed one.

I believe the parent was referring to the power to do something with the money. (Not in what one owes). In a decent society there are things no amount of money can buy, and things that take inordinate amounts that would only corrupt a sick fraction of the populace. That is part of what is gross about Epstein's scale, it made many of us realize that there is a price on those specific things and it wasn't just a sociopathic microslice of society, but seemingly "all" (lots, most, too many -- choose your term) of the people in power.

Additionally Lobbying shows us the amount of money for corruption is surprisingly low.

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

#325

Post by Skunkleton »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #321
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…

A consumer friendly policy could be: 1. Proration for a "lifetime" access (87 years) denied. In many cases probably close to 90% refunded. 2. irrespective, a Full refund for those who had never viewed the purchase. 3. A refund equal to the purchase price on the streaming platform newly acquired. Or a lifetime access (87 years) of the monthly billed streaming platform.

Or get this - you get a drm free copy and they let you redownload/stream it for and undefined (hopefully long) period of time. After that you can play your copy or use a copy from elsewhere.

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

#326

Post by zaptheimpaler »

goldenarm wrote: post #20

IANAL, but is it illegal to have a "Buy" button that is just a disguised "Rent" button? If not, should we change the law?

It’s good but will ultimately end up like the GPDR popups. Everything will say rent, won’t change the fact that you can’t actually own anything. The law should instead give us real ownership.

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

#327

Post by aeturnum »

Sony is obviously the villain here (and pretty much always) but I think this points to an unsolved problem with our model of digital ownership: it's based on the media company providing a service...forever? People in this thread are saying customers should get refunds and I disagree - customers should get video files!

We need a model of digital ownership that does not involve the media owner forever delivering that media on demand. Doing away with that requirement would be good for all involved. Sony has been a bad actor here and deserves every possible sorrow - and also I would like a model that retains the balance of physical media: companies give you a copy that works 'til it wears out and it's your job to keep it in working condition.

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

#328

Post by danaris »

close04 wrote: post #253
danaris wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boycotts don't work nearly as well nowadays because a) Consumers don't have enough money already, so they're both stressed out and getting fewer things for themselves. These combine to mean that they're less likely to be willing to give up what little luxuries they have left, even if you're just asking them to substitute one media property for another. b) The companies being targeted are just too damn big. The consol…

You painted an accurate picture about how people act in this case and for boycotts in general but let’s be honest, not buying movies from Sony and its store is the last thing most people would “suffer” from. There’s such a large supply of content today that ditching one source for another has almost no real impact. How much content really is only on Sony’s store, and how much of it would wear you down if you didn’t c…

You seem to have either misunderstood my point (a), or you have a misguided idea of how important small luxuries are to people, especially people who do not have the means to procure larger luxuries on a regular basis.

I mean, sure; it's much more painful to boycott the only ISP around, or the only grocery store within a 30 mile radius, but just because there are things that could be worse doesn't mean that this can't be bad.

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

#329

Post by [deleted] »

chaosharmonic wrote: post #274
8note wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blockbuster rented cartridges and disks back in the day. so do libraries

Fair, I more so mean for digital releases. Movies, on digital marketplaces, have had this kind of distinction for a lot longer than games have.

[deleted]

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

#330

Post by Nevermark »

thfuran wrote: post #310
dev_l1x_be wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Plus interest

The interest and inflation are the time value of money, which you pay, for the time value of access.

Original-price refund is both simple, and (by linking the time-value of money for both parties) fair.

Post reply on HN