Comment on End of an era?
13igTyme@piefed.social 1 day ago
The price increase part is sort of out of their hands. They are a small player in the chip game.
Other parts are all them all shit.
Comment on End of an era?
13igTyme@piefed.social 1 day ago
The price increase part is sort of out of their hands. They are a small player in the chip game.
Other parts are all them all shit.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The removal of digital media is also out of their hands. They agreed to a distribution contract. The entity that owns that media offered a conditional license in that distribution agreement. Now they are either choosing not to renew or choosing to cancel the agreement and legally Sony don’t have a choice except to be sued if they continue to allow people to access that digital content.
I agree it’s shitty. I agree that it’s a crazy thing to have happen when you’re dropping the news about doing away with physical media. But it’s still not really in their control.
feannag@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I guess you could argue that they negotiated a shit contract. They should have had the right to sell a perpetual license to the media. When the contract runs out, they just can’t sell it anymore, but they don’t have to pull it from those that had purchased it.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m this particular case what they were selling wasn’t a license copy of a movie or show. They were selling a license the stream. When the contract ran out they had to pull it from the streaming platform.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
The consumers contract for the content is with sony, not with someone else. The underlying structure doesn’t interest anyone except lawyers. Sony should be mandated to refund content that they pull from libraries, or they have to ensure that they don’t lose access to the content they are “selling”. Also, it should be enshrined in law that if you only get a licence that can be pulled anytime that this information is very, very clear when paying for content, and not to hide this information on page 23 or so in their licence agreement, where they redefine the meaning of buy, own, purchase… and so on to something that very much has NOT the meaning of those words.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ok. So let’s say for the sake of argument, you have Netflix. You pay for Netflix specifically for… I dunno, Top Gear. Suddenly without warning Netflix is forced to pull Top Gear from its streaming platform because the license to provide it to stream has lapsed or been otherwise ended. That’s basically what happened here except that they allowed you to pay per show or movie.
In this case what these customers paid for is the license to stream these digital items. Which (shitty though I agree it is) they agreed to when they made their purchases. But the fact is, Sony didn’t reach into people’s Harddrives and remove anything. What they did was remove these shows and movies from the digital streaming library of people who purchased it and the only reason they did is because otherwise they’d be sued if they didn’t.
So while I appreciate your outrage, I think it’s pretty important to note that the license holder (the entity that actually owns the ability to sell distribution rights for digital licenses to consumers) is the one who sets the terms, not the platform of distribution, and this happens so often that literally not digital media is safe except when you can download it DRM free (Google play music, band camp, GOG etc).
I don’t disagree that Sony is at fault for agreeing to that distribution agreement. That’s not anything like what I said. What I said was that they did it because they are required to by law.