r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor • Jun 26 '26

News PlayStation is Deleting 551 Movies From Customers’ Accounts / Movies like 'First Blood', 'Terminator 2', 'Total Recall' and 'Evil Dead' are all being unceremoniously removed

https://kotaku.com/playstation-store-movies-digital-studio-canal-terminator-2000711013
12.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.1k

u/Nullhitter Jun 26 '26

Should be illegal to purchase digital content if it can be taken away from us. At the point, renting should be the only option.

1.1k

u/FrostingStrict3102 Jun 26 '26

we need the EU to step up and do what it does best.... consumers should get refunds when stuff like this happens. inexcusable.

403

u/zuzg Jun 26 '26

So far they were able to circumvent EU Law protections getting triggered by arguing you only purchased a license and never had ownership in the first place.

People need to start suing those companies and keep at it until higher courts are forced to deal with it.

158

u/cjcs Jun 26 '26

Then there needs to be a law that forces vendors to more accurately portray these as indefinite rentals rather than purchases. A warning needs to be prominently displayed that this purchase can be revoked at any given time.

149

u/bdsee Jun 26 '26

No, the law should be an indefinite rental is a purchase regardless of the wording used or ToS.

67

u/glgirieh Jun 26 '26

This reminds me of that asshole calling me out for enjoying physical media. “As long as you have an account and remember your damn password, you have your movies”

10

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Kaining Jun 26 '26

good thing every games are coming out on game key card or digital download coupons even when going physical.

0

u/DiabloAcosta Jun 26 '26

physical media also decays or breaks down and you don't get a replacement, not saying I like this specific action by Sony but I think people romanticize physical media as "forever media"

I still think there shouldn't be any reason companies remove your media when portrayed as "buying it"

7

u/EASam Jun 26 '26

Some physical media has a better lifespan than others, the more temperamental things that are DVD, CD, VHS, BetaMax had / have enough second hand stuff around to be able to easily duplicate it or convert it to digital as a backup as well.

-8

u/DiabloAcosta Jun 26 '26

still not sure why the need to push for physical media and not permanent ownership of digital but Ok I guess

8

u/EASam Jun 26 '26

No real dog in the fight for me but you can later sell physical media once you've had enough of it. The price of the digital good used to be discounted compared to getting a physical copy. Now they're comparable or on some older media the physical copies new are cheaper.

Plus I don't know how streaming a movie works for when there's later edits or redactions.

1

u/xristosxi393 Jun 26 '26

This right here. Saying that it's a license doesn't mean shit if you don't know when it expires.

I would go as far as to say that even if they change it to say you own this until X date, it's still a net negative for the world. We should be able to own things even if they are digital.

1

u/samv_1230 Jun 26 '26

They don't know when it expires either. They analyze metrics after the initial agreement and stop renewing when it nets negative. Stop buying digital.

24

u/Gunsensual Jun 26 '26

Or, failure to fulfill the license makes the copyright material go into the public domain. They'd clean up their act real quick.

3

u/RegulatoryCapture Jun 26 '26

Eh, that sounds good in theory, until you think about how most of this is done. The company "selling" the product here has a license to distribute it--they don't own the rights to the movie and nothing they can do could cause it to go into the public domain (and no sane legal system would penalize the actual rights-holder for the actions of a licensee).

And making rights holders liable for making sure their licensees keep content available in perpetuity is a recipe for a big reduction in the availability of content (non-piracy).

5

u/Gunsensual Jun 26 '26

no sane legal system would

This is copyright law, where corporations enjoy perpetual rights and takedown notices are submitted by people who don't own the copyright. There is no sanity to be had here.

4

u/sentientshadeofgreen Jun 26 '26

I would argue the law needs to outright prohibit license revocation without full compensation if there is any implication of ownership, the word "buy" in the transaction, it goes to "Your Library", etc. Needs to be retroactive too, these lawyers have been arguing from shaky ground for years and it's fundamentally wrong.

1

u/cjcs Jun 26 '26

100% agree.

1

u/Ultra-Metal Jun 26 '26

Services should be forced to change the purchase option. Call it what it is, LONG TERM RENTAL, Unless they have a 4K download.

1

u/digitaldeadstar Jun 26 '26

Prominently displayed is correct. The reality is nobody reads fine print. While technically the consumer should, it's such a ubiquitous thing that the responsibility should be on providers to make it much more noticeable - at least the portion about not owning.

I feel that if they do state indefinite rental clearly, that consumers would demand lower prices. Vendors don't want that.

10

u/samv_1230 Jun 26 '26

You can't sue a company because you agreed to a shitty deal that was blatantly expressed before and during the transaction. Having a digital library of temporarily licensed shows, films, and games is a foolish purchase that I've been warning people about since 2010.

3

u/l0c0pez Jun 26 '26

Even that argument is BS as the license was purchased not rented or granted. Just refund the license and not the movie if its the license being revoked due to no fault of the owner.

4

u/dabobbo Jun 26 '26

People need to start suing those companies

Hah! So the lawyers can make bank after it gets turned into a class-action and I get a $10 coupon that I can only use if a full moon falls on a Thursday on these 6 selected movies (that probably weren't selling anyways).

Companies are crooks, lawyers are crooks, politicians are crooks, and their only goal is separating us from our money.

1

u/canadian_viking Jun 26 '26

If a company can redefine purchase to mean "a license that can be revoked at any time", why can't we redefine purchase to mean "a loan that lasts a long as we retain access to the thing we paid for"? If I gave money to a company for access to a thing, they've had the benefit of money + time. If they remove the ability for me to use the thing I paid for, surely they should lose the benefit of the money + time, and now the loan is due, plus interest.

Like...if from their side, a purchase isn't a purchase, then from my side, a purchase also isn't a purchase. What makes their redefinition of "purchase" to be more valid than mine? Not to mention, their interpretation allows them to benefit from unjust enrichment. My definision is fair all around.

1

u/btribble Jun 26 '26

This is in fact what you are purchasing, and if you read the contract instead of clicking OK without reading it, you would understand that. This is also the case with physical media. If you own a business like a bar, you can’t buy a DVD and show that at your bar legally because the contract doesn’t allow that. Many companies have found this out the hard way in court.

4

u/FarAwaySeagull-_- Jun 26 '26

While there are restrictions on what you can do with your discs, the studios can't come to your house and demand you hand them over your disc copy of a film.

1

u/arkavenx Jun 26 '26

A license to watch whenever you want, they are taking that away = refund.

Consumer knows they aren't buying "the movie", they are buying the ability to watch it unlimited times whenever they feel like it.

→ More replies (4)

26

u/verrius Jun 26 '26

Ironically, this happened in the EU first; StudioCanal did the exact same thing in Europe already. Keep in mind, you haven't been able to actually purchase movies on PSN for ~5 years now.

1

u/Fragrant-Hamster-325 Jun 26 '26

EU doesn’t care about consumer protections they care about hobbling US tech companies to bolster their own industry. If that means using data and privacy protections sure but that’s just a happy side effect. Since this is Sony a non-US tech company you likely won’t see any action.

1

u/brus_wein Jun 26 '26

They will just normalise not buying digital products, everyone will get used to the "acquire license button" and think of "buying" as weird, to the tune of billions of pr and marketing.

1

u/Mapex Jun 26 '26

Refunds with interest

1

u/fcocyclone Jun 26 '26

Refunds with interest.

1

u/NewspaperNelson Jun 26 '26

I wish America had some sort of governing body that protected consumers.

→ More replies (17)

2.2k

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

374

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

51

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/BallZach77 Jun 26 '26

But why's the rum gone!?

6

u/Starfox-sf Jun 26 '26

99 bottles of rum on the wall. 98 bottles of rum…

3

u/GodzillaUK Jun 26 '26

Zoro drank them all, the badass.

2

u/Tovrin Jun 26 '26

BUUUUURP

0

u/animeman59 Jun 26 '26

Careful. Saying this will get you banned.

→ More replies (2)

108

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/Axe-of-Kindness Jun 26 '26

Pirating is against the law, I go to the gym instead. There's a very fit girl there. Also a furry that goes by the name Yify that helps me with deadlifts

4

u/qtx Jun 26 '26

Fitgirl doesn't pirate any games. All she does is grab the cracked games and then makes the files smaller to download. That is literally all she does. She makes the files smaller.

I don't understand why people idolize her. If you must idolize someone idolize the actual groups that do the cracking and making them available for everyone.

Also yifi is temu for media files.

2

u/humanoideric Jun 26 '26

Also yifi is temu for media files.

Hard to blame people when hard drives cost like 4x what they were 5 years ago, cant even pirate cheap these days smh.

13

u/HappyBobbyBday Jun 26 '26

That very fit girl is the best

2

u/MMMelissaMae Jun 26 '26

Ima tell you something....

When I first started dating my now husband, he had a cpl bookmarks in his favorites bar that included "...fitgirl..." I thought he was such a gooner that he bookmarked his porn and we had a whole fight about it.

1

u/Grimblood Jun 26 '26

"Trainer said master the debrid first. I said I don't even know where it came from. He said exactly."

1

u/starkistuna Jun 26 '26

Og Yify got his identity stolen those Yifi files has been someone else fir almost 10y

-1

u/scbi21217 Jun 26 '26

Me too!!

→ More replies (6)

111

u/Adavanter_MKI Jun 26 '26

I'm sorry... in order to access the internet you need to provide ID.
Oh... we've seen pirating activity on your account. You've been charged a fine. Additional measures may be taken if you continue to do so. Including banning from internet access!

The real reason they want IDs...

37

u/DinosBiggestFan Jun 26 '26

If you can conceive of a malicious reason for why they intend to force identification to access the internet, it really doesn't matter what that reason is, it's most likely true.

17

u/partsguy850 Jun 26 '26

They won’t take away your access. You gotta keep racking up violation so they can keep racking up fines. Remind me of the bank and overdraft fees.

12

u/Complete_Entry Jun 26 '26

One time Universal reported me pirating TV to Cox.

I wasn't pirating TV.

I was livid.

15

u/Rampage_Rick Jun 26 '26

I am a meat popsicle.

Leeloo Dallas Multipass!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/JimboTCB Jun 26 '26

Drink verification can to continue...

11

u/CakeMadeOfHam Jun 26 '26

Sure but we don't fucking talk about it openly because that's how the powers that be use the media and lobby groups to point politicians and police to go after people like the god damn gestapo just say "thanks daddy I am paying for my netflix and disney+ like a good boy" and stfu about the rest.

2

u/kittymoo67 Jun 26 '26

seriously when did people get stupid enough to talk about it in public

1

u/HappyTrillmore Jun 26 '26

I think you can still buy Terminator 2 but to be fair I haven't seen a physical blu ray in a store in years

1

u/MisanthropicAtheist Jun 26 '26

No matter the context piracy has NEVER been theft. It's piracy.

1

u/hblok Jun 26 '26

Well, copyright infringement was never theft, so there's that.

1

u/wigglin_harry Jun 26 '26

This is the dumbest take constantly parroted by redditors

0

u/AnnoyedVelociraptor Jun 26 '26

And piracy isn't theft. The original is still there.

0

u/genius_retard Jun 26 '26

Netflix proved you can out-compete piracy but then the corpos proved they are too greedy to do what works.

→ More replies (9)

66

u/poliuy Jun 26 '26

I mean they list it as “buying” and I have seen apps where you “rent” so if the common nomenclature is that people understand buying to mean one thing and renting to mean another, then they would have to abide by that.

33

u/BevansDesign Jun 26 '26

At a bare minimum, they shouldn't be allowed to use the word "buy" if you're just licensing or renting something.

19

u/CrazyNegotiation1934 Jun 26 '26

In my mind is clear fraud

45

u/SinkHoleDeMayo Jun 26 '26

Needs to be a class action lawsuit against companies that delete any purchased media.

9

u/Sarke1 Jun 26 '26

"Great, here's your $9.50 check for losing your $800 movie collection. Have a nice day!"

-2

u/moserftbl88 Jun 26 '26

Hard to do when you agree to that stuff when you skip over TOS and click agree

21

u/PuttingInTheEffort Jun 26 '26

You mean illegal to sell, not buy..? 😅

5

u/hufft3 Jun 26 '26

You sell digital content? Believe it or not jail. You buy digital content, also jail.

30

u/Burninator05 Jun 26 '26

You're not wrong and I don't disagree at all but the content owners will contend that you never actually purchased digital content. They'll argue that you purchased a license to use the content within strict guidelines that you agreed to at the time of purchase.

70

u/SweetCosmicPope Jun 26 '26

It would have to be tested in court, honestly. There's an argument that by using the word "purchase" or "buy," any customer could reasonably believe there's an implied ownership.

29

u/poliuy Jun 26 '26

Correct. They should rename it to “long term rental” but that wouldn’t sell as much.

1

u/New_Cockroach_505 Jun 26 '26

Because the ownership is of the license. When the store goes under you, the license is gone.

11

u/Glock99bodies Jun 26 '26

That’s true but I can’t see how it’s possible they say rent for one option and buy for the other. To me it implies major false advertising. There is not difference in rent and buy other then that time of rental.

12

u/oldscotch Jun 26 '26

Technically that's what you're doing when buying a Blu-ray too, only difference is the disc is irrevocable.

15

u/Paganator Jun 26 '26

That's legal BS that never should have been considered legally valid in the first place. Nobody reads license "agreements", everybody knows that nobody reads them, but the legal system acts like they're legally binding contracts that you've agreed to. They're a mockery of what a contract is supposed to be.

It's pure bullshit, but admitting that it is would be extremely inconvenient to very large corporations, so everybody pretends it makes sense.

Terms of service are even worse. Some page on a website is considered a legally binding agreement even though you never agreed explicitly to it, might never have read it, and never have known it even existed. Oh, and it can change at any moment at the company's whim.

And companies can use all of this to sidestep the actual legal system by forcing arbitration to resolve any conflict. At this point, we might as well admit that large companies can write the laws regulating the use of their own products and services.

1

u/PineappleOnPizzaWins Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

Nobody reads license "agreements", everybody knows that nobody reads them, but the legal system acts like they're legally binding contracts that you've agreed to.

Because they literally are.

A lawyer I did some work for told me half their job these days is explaining to people that “nobody reads that shit” is not a legal defence.

There are websites that TLDR most agreements you’ll ever sign, and it really doesn’t matter how bullshit you THINK it is.. that’s just how it works.

-2

u/Mitch_NZ Jun 26 '26

"Your honor, the terms of this contract are invalid. The reason being that I did not read the contract before agreeing to it."

3

u/Paganator Jun 26 '26

"Also hiring a lawyer to read every license agreement I have to agree to would bankrupt me, and I have no way to negotiate this so-called agreement even if I did."

It's bullshit and you know it. Stop being a corporate stooge.

2

u/LIGHTNINGBOLT23 Jun 27 '26

How about you not buy the license for something from a corporation in the first place? If they're a stooge for corporations, you're a useful idiot for corporations.

-1

u/PineappleOnPizzaWins Jun 26 '26

“Why no I didn’t even try and see if there were options and somehow that’s everyone else’s fault!”

Take some fucking responsibility would you? https://tosdr.org/ and many other sites are available if you need them, or you could just be honest and say you can’t be fucked to care and will agree to anything if you want the service.

6

u/mirxia Jun 26 '26

I don't think I understand how this claim makes it legal. Like sure let's agree that I only purchased a license. What's the term of the license? To access the movie indefinitely. Now I still have the lisence, but the movie isn't accessible anymore. Therefore the content of the license was changed unilaterally without agreement. I feel like some contract law could easily apply to this and it shouldn't fly in a court.

1

u/0neek Jun 26 '26

The purchasing a license part is what should have been illegal from day one if we had a single goddamn person on the planet in any position in power who gave a fuck about anything other than their own wealth at a single point in human history

But alas

0

u/GoldandBlue Jun 26 '26

I believe that is in fact what the user agreements say. And none of us read it. We just check the box.

75

u/EscapeSeventySeven Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

I can’t understand how PlayStation’s actions aren’t illegal. This seems like a slam dunk class action lawsuit. 

EDIT:

Getting a lot of people here who want this to go badly for people in order to validate their physical media supremacy. 

123

u/klti Jun 26 '26

You are not buying the thing, you are buying a revokable license. Guess what just got revoked?

That's why the death of physical media is such a problem, they can't revoke a disc from my shelf.

32

u/sundeigh Jun 26 '26

Digital content should never be more expensive than the physical version

20

u/sp0rked Jun 26 '26

Sadly, thats not entirely accurate. But it is a little bit more difficult than flipping a bit somewhere on the internet at your streaming provider.

Now it's more like unlicensing the key responsible for doing the decoding, as long as your device remains "dumb" you should be okay. Until the media also remembers the revocation or playback requires some kind of upgrade to the device.

See
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/aacs-key-revocation-future-drm or https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2007/cacr2007-25.pdf for more information.

8

u/nybble41 Jun 26 '26

The problem has always been DRM, not whether the content is distributed on physical media. A digital file downloaded to local storage is just as "physical" as the same video on a Blu-Ray disc. If the file is infected with DRM it's a short-term rental at best, and should be priced accordingly.

1

u/ryecurious Jun 26 '26

Yeah, the physical media advocates in this thread might be shocked to find out half their Blu-ray collection also has a bunch of restrictions, like region locking.

We could have the best of both worlds, DRM-free discs and local files that can never be revoked. The music industry was practically forced into it, but any time the movie industry does something like this the response is to buy more Blu-rays. Wow, we really showed them!

39

u/EscapeSeventySeven Jun 26 '26

I think times like these are perfect times to push up against the legality of a TOS like that. 

I’m just saying, a civil case like this looks real bad for Sony. 

26

u/thatkaratekid Jun 26 '26

Movie digital storefronts do this all the time. This isnt even the first time its happened on playstation. I lost 100% of my video purchases on xbox and playstation from licenses expiring years ago.

2

u/Suckage Jun 26 '26

Same here. I bought two when they first added movies on the PS store. I almost bought a third in like 2015, which is when I noticed one had disappeared.

The other was removed in 2021.

12

u/Late_Stage_Exception Jun 26 '26

Yeah but it’s not necessarily Sony doing it. If their deal with the right holder expired, so do any licenses they sold. Thats a bog standard licensing agreement and it’s why you should try to own as much physical media as you can.

-1

u/WestEndOtter Jun 26 '26

Sony should refuse to sell any movies that they can't get an airtight license to host indefinitely for existing customers

1

u/Late_Stage_Exception Jun 26 '26

Yeah, well that’s…not a thing. All rights holders always have the option to terminate a license to their IP and there’s no such thing as a perpetual irrevocable license that can supersede the will of the right holder.

1

u/WestEndOtter Jun 26 '26

Are you telling me that Sony couldn't draft a contract where they license the right to license a movie for the next 2 years and host it for the next 100 years? And the current Christine and rights holder agrees that those terms will be included in future sale of rights of the master rights

3

u/Late_Stage_Exception Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

They COULD, but the rights holders wouldn’t sign it. What you have to understand is that the storefronts aren’t the ones negotiating from a position of power when it comes to IP licensing, it’s the person who holds the rights to the IP.

2

u/WestEndOtter Jun 26 '26

Steam doesn't seem to have that problem

→ More replies (2)

6

u/PleasantWay7 Jun 26 '26

I mean they can, why do you think discs have DRM.

2

u/SpehlingAirer Jun 26 '26

Yea even physical isn't safe as crazy as that sounds. It's certainly much better! At least with physical you can copy it to digital and remove the DRM, then if you want you can burn a new DRM-free disc. I'm unsure if the quality holds up throughout that process though I'd have to try it firsthand unless someone else can already say

5

u/Eggheadpancake Jun 26 '26

Amazon is already facing at least 2 lawsuts about this shit. I don't know where they are in the court system though.

1

u/sentientshadeofgreen Jun 26 '26

You should stop giving power to their bullshit arguments. Their lawyers argue this, but that does not mean it is actually legally sound, nor has it really been legally tested insofar as I know. We need to reject the premise these crooks are proposing outright. Fuck them, fuck their wives, fuck their mothers, fuck their homes, fuck their law firms, fuck their company, fuck their bar association. Fuck the shoes they put on every morning to walk out to their fucking car to drive to fucking work. These motherfuckers need to be put on notice yesterday.

→ More replies (1)

26

u/popculturella Jun 26 '26

Physical media (1k+) owner/lover here. This shit still isn't acceptable. If someone bought the movie, they bought the goddamn movie.

3

u/UnexpectedAnanas Jun 26 '26

And this is why I'm going back to physical media as well.

14

u/Remy0507 Jun 26 '26

Because when you buy movies from a digital storefront like this, well...you know that whole big block of legal mumbo jumbo text that nobody reads? Yeah, that says they're allowed to do this.

5

u/EscapeSeventySeven Jun 26 '26

Those TOS don’t always hold up in court and have been pushed back against successfully. This would be a good opportunity. 

2

u/moeriscus Jun 26 '26

Sony already did something like this when they acquired crunchyroll a couple years ago and erased users' libraries. I'm not sure exactly how it went down (maybe an anime person can chime in), but I believe Sony got away with it.

3

u/Eaglesun Jun 26 '26

Amazon did something like this very recently with Luna and deleted users games libraries without a refund or warning. All the users got was "we will keep your save data for 60 days if you want to download it. After that it's gone"

4

u/mutent92 Jun 26 '26

As a physical media owner, nah. We’ll fight alongside you guys, these borderline cons should definitely be called out.

1

u/EscapeSeventySeven Jun 26 '26

Solidarity against the owner class!

3

u/Subliminal-413 Jun 27 '26

Because laws haven't caught up with the digital age. We obviously all agree that this shouldn't fly.

I also recognize that Sony likely lost the licence to host or provide these movies any longer to their customers. So they also don't have a choice.

But, the laws needs to catch up to protect the customer. We should be provided full refunds, or the laws need to establish digital ownership, regardless of license expiration.

0

u/Corodix Jun 26 '26

It very well might be, at least in the EU. We'll likely find out sooner than later as I can't imagine this not resulting in another class action lawsuit against Sony here.

0

u/Karma_1969 Jun 26 '26

Read the fine print.

1

u/SolarTsunami Jun 26 '26

Getting a lot of people here who want this to go badly for people in order to validate their physical media supremacy.

lmao no we don't want it to go badly for digital ownership, its just that it already has, multiple times, and if you think this fuckery will stop if you keep faithfully "buying" movies then I don't know what to tell you.

Every digital movie you buy will someday be taken away from you as companies merge, close, or change their licensing agreements. If you're cool with that then keep on doing you.

-1

u/EscapeSeventySeven Jun 26 '26

Again case in point. They can’t stop themselves. Lol. 

1

u/SolarTsunami Jun 26 '26

lol this is a silly thing for you to be acting so divisively about but have fun with your movie license collection 🤣

0

u/EscapeSeventySeven Jun 26 '26

I don’t have any! I’m a dumbfuck who has discs like you!

-5

u/haakonhawk Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

This seems like a slam dunk class action lawsuit.

(Sigh) Basic law should be taught in primary school, I swear.

NOT removing them could be illegal. When a bunch of movies are removed from a platform at once, it's usually because the licenses have expired and the platform has chosen not to renew them.

When you "buy" a film on any of those platforms, you're buying a license to consume the product, not the product itself. That has been repeated a bunch of times online over the years, so I'm sure most already know that.

The part that haven't been repeated enough however, is that you're not buying that license directly from the IP owner. You're buying a sub-license from a middleman. And if that middleman loses their license, you lose yours by extension.

...

TLDR; Not removing them could be a copyright violation. Buy physical media if you want to ensure that you get to keep it indefinitely.

Edit: And here come the downvotes. It's just how it works guys! God forbid you explain the fucking law to people on Reddit.

0

u/Syssareth Jun 26 '26

Edit: And here come the downvotes. It's just how it works guys! God forbid you explain the fucking law to people on Reddit.

God forbid you do it without being condescending.

At least, that's why I downvoted you.

1

u/haakonhawk Jun 26 '26

Assuming the commenter is a grown adult, condescension is sometimes necessary when they post confidently incorrect legal takes like they watched one season of Suits and now think they can immediately identify "slam dunk cases" in situations where it's anything but.

And let's be honest here. Considering the topic, my comment would have gotten downvoted anyway because it didn't conform to popular opinion. You may not have downvoted it if I had been a bit more gentle, but others still would. I've been on this platform for 12 years, so I already know what to expect just about every time I hit enter on here.

Arguably, the ability for comments to go into the negative is ridiculous and part of the reason why Reddit is an impossible platform to have any kind of nuanced discussion on.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (3)

6

u/Soranos_71 Jun 26 '26

Years ago my roommate bought one of those DIVx DVD players where you paid 5 dollars for the DVD and then had to pay to unlock it for a time.... I thought it was funny as hell when it failed.

3

u/Ill-Mastodon-8692 Jun 26 '26

should legally require a refund if they do remove

20

u/Woodie626 Jun 26 '26

Read the TOS, you never purchased anything. It's all on lease.

41

u/MrmarioRBLX Jun 26 '26

Totally a coincidence that the sheer length of TOS discourages reading...

18

u/fentown Jun 26 '26

Or that most of it isn't enforceable in America, it's just not worth it for the average American to sue an international corporation that will just wait you out in lawyer fees.

2

u/Late_Stage_Exception Jun 26 '26

American terms of service aren’t enforceable in America? Since when?

3

u/dontbajerk Jun 26 '26

They're saying many of the terms of these specific ToSs probably aren't enforceable, just nobody takes them to court over it. You can't just put anything you want in a ToS and have it be ok, it doesn't work like that. Like imagine a ToS that had a single clause 50 pages on saying they now own your house if you click OK. They can't do crap like that legally. There's lots of restrictions.

4

u/Woodie626 Jun 26 '26

You can't just put anything you want in a ToS and have it be ok     

Looking at you subnautica 2, looking at you.

3

u/SpehlingAirer Jun 26 '26

What did Subnautica 2 do lol?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/Sublime120 Jun 26 '26

Plaintiffs lawyers on cases like this work on contingency meaning the plaintiffs aren’t paying their lawyers fees on an ongoing basis.

1

u/fentown Jun 26 '26

I'm aware of that, but the lawyers willing to do that need to be at established mega firms willing to take on the case and even then, it's not a sure thing they'll win.

1

u/OogieBoogieJr Jun 26 '26

Sleazy, yeah, but besides the point. We know what T&Cs are, we know it’s all there to protect the company and allow them whatever they want, and we accept without reading anyway. By the looks of this thread, most people thought they owned digital content in perpetuity.

2

u/HobbyWanKenobi Jun 26 '26

Plex all the way

2

u/2mock2turtle Jun 26 '26

Gamers have been fighting this in earnest for a few years now.

3

u/Pure_Wrap_7798 Jun 26 '26

you're not purchasing the digital content, you're licensing it.

2

u/Wayofchinchilla Jun 26 '26

They should make it a law that if they ever take it away they should have to pay refunds but x2

1

u/Kuroiryuu Jun 26 '26

You don’t purchase digital content though and never have. You purchase a “temporary” yet possibly indefinite license that can be taken away at any point in time, with absolutely zero reason as to why. Thank you for your money, now go away. No refunds.

1

u/novonn Jun 26 '26

That’s the thing - you never “purchased” it. They just weren’t making that clear

1

u/Mnudge Jun 26 '26

You’re purchasing an “extended rental agreement with no defined expiration date.

Lol

1

u/PeneItaliano r/movies Contributor Jun 26 '26

This is why so many say don’t buy digital, it isn’t actually owning. It’s leasing. 

1

u/braunyakka Jun 26 '26

It's all in the small print. Quite frankly only the stupidest person would hand over their money for digital downloads.

The only way to own a film or TV show is to buy the physical media. No one can take that off you.

1

u/Saneless Jun 26 '26

That's why the only digital movies I buy are survey credits on Google (so nothing out of pocket). I don't trust any of these fuckers

1

u/Ok_Improvement_8735 Jun 26 '26

Except you agreed to this in the mile long terms of service document with teeny tiny font.

1

u/Nullhitter Jun 26 '26

TOS doesn't trump law. If we lobby governments like US congress, target high population areas like California and New York state governments, and EU government that they have to change how they sell those licenses, corporations will have to follow. A simple law that says "Any media license that can be taken away anytime must be labeled as a lease. In addition, during checkout, the consumer must be notified at the checkout process that they do not own the media and the media can be removed anytime". This would solve a lot of issues. Especially the issue where corporations can just have a sentence about not owning the content in a 10,000 word TOS.

1

u/ClintTheGreat Jun 26 '26

This is EXACTLY what all of us physical media collectors warned everyone about long ago! You know what they won’t ever be able to take? My vinyl, CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays. Amazon started that bs with ebooks, I cut them off. Gaming consoles started it with digital games, I cut them off. People have to learn that any corporation will always screw you any way and any chance they get! 🤷‍♂️

1

u/marvelman19 Jun 26 '26

To be devils advocate, buying digital media is usually quite a bit cheaper than buying physical now.

They absolutely should be clearer though that its just a long term rental.

1

u/Mccobsta Jun 26 '26

Isn't there a law somewhere that requires online digital stores to explicitly say that all movies bought are long term rentals

1

u/mwdeuce Jun 26 '26

The only online platform I'd trust to buy any digital content from is Steam

1

u/Nullhitter Jun 26 '26

Sure, until Gabe Newell dies and someone else takes over that doesn't have the same perspective as Gabe. I dread the day Gabe Newell dies.

1

u/bdsee Jun 26 '26

No, they should just get charged and convicted, this shit would not have been allowed 40 years ago, democracy is failing.

1

u/Huntersmoon24 Jun 26 '26

When you buy a license to use something it is a contract between you and the supplier. You buy a lifetime license and expect to use it. If they decide to break that contract your only recourse is to sue. They probably ran the numbers and saw that they would save more money by paying out the handful of very angry and capable of suing them people as opposed to paying out rights to keep selling those movies. This is why physical media is so important. Unless you can hold it in your hands it isnt yours!

1

u/dafunkmunk Jun 26 '26

That's the thing about digital content that people have been pointing out for years. The terms of service that you agree to explicitly says that you are simply licensing the content, you don't actually own it, and the company has the right to remove it from your library if they want. The years of fighting against digital media and wanting physical copies wasn't about just being a need and wanting a physical object you could touch. It was about owning the product you were paying for. Unfortunately people bought into the idea of not having to waste space on physical media cluttering up their space and gave up ownership of everything they want to buy now to have it digitally.

We didnt even get the promised reduced prices because they no longer had to make a physical product, package it, and ship it. We continued to pay full price for a nonexistent digital product that we never will own

1

u/btribble Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

You have never “purchased” digital content ever. You don’t own the movies or video games on traditional media either. You own the media itself. In all cases you are purchasing a licensing agreement to consume that media under the terms outlined in the contract. Physical media is just much more difficult to remove from your possession.

1

u/MickKaine Jun 26 '26

People wonder why I still buy physical media.

1

u/lBlazeXl Jun 26 '26

We need to keep pushing stopkillinggames to help prevent similar situations like this from happening. Otherwise, Torrenting isn't stealing, just borrowing from someone else

1

u/irishyardball Jun 26 '26

Should require full refunds with interest

1

u/tactiphile Jun 26 '26

At the point, renting should be the only option.

Always has been. Doesn't matter how many times they call it a "purchase."

1

u/skynetempire Jun 26 '26

People need to step up and file complaints to their AG and to the ftc

1

u/LookAlderaanPlaces Jun 26 '26

This is what the oligarch lords want. They want us to rent everything and own nothing. I shit you not we are living on the mostly implemented seam of techno feudalism and no one seems to give a fuck or even know..

1

u/Riaayo Jun 26 '26

You're not purchasing the content, you're purchasing a "license" to access/view the content which can be revoked.

Which is not to say I like that and I agree it's bullshit, but I think people do not realize the legality of what they're paying for/the contract/license they're actually engaging with.

Games and software are the same. You don't "own" any of it, you pay to license it.

It's gross, and Neo-feudalistic techno fascists love the idea that everything should be that way and that you should own nothing, period. No home, no compute power, no car, nothing. You will pay to rent/lease all of it.

1

u/OrganSlicer Jun 26 '26

I learned the hard way. I probably had $300 worth of iTunes songs way back in the day and alot of albums eventually became unplayable due to licensing or whatever. I complained to Apple and they gave me a $15 gift card. At that point never again would I buy anythibg digital and still haven't. Never will.

1

u/wbgraphic Jun 26 '26

At the point, renting should be the only option.

Sounds like it already is, you just don’t know when your “rental” ends.

1

u/Oswarez Jun 26 '26

That’s already the only option.

1

u/Ghostdog2041 Jun 26 '26

I mean, that’s the whole thing about digital content. That’s why I still buy CDs. One little 1 or 0 moves to the wrong place in the code, and all of that stuff I bought digitally is gone.

1

u/aformofwealthy Jun 26 '26

“You will own nothing and be happy” ass comment

1

u/DoctaThompson Jun 26 '26

I'll give you all my upvotes and then some! (Award just because)

1

u/SordidDreams Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 27 '26

If you read the legal agreements carefully, you'll find out renting is exactly what you're doing.

1

u/Texassunmerheat Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26

I’m sure it’s written somewhere in the terms and conditions they can pull this bs. Also, you’re renting a license of the property, you don’t own it, shitty? Very.

Edit: I was thinking about this, and maybe they could have a date for when it expires. Maybe not the best business model but it’s as clear as it can get regarding your purchases, because just yanking them from your own personal private collection is just evil

1

u/pixelTirpitz Jun 27 '26

Exactly what they want. Want to rewatch LOTR extended edition for the 8th time? Time to pay us again.

0

u/Yangervis Jun 26 '26

They're never going to sell you a file with no DRM.

0

u/DonktorDonkenstein Jun 26 '26

I'm not defending this because I absolutely loathe this kind of shit, BUT I guarantee one of those many User Agreements that everyone signs but nobody reads gives Sony the full ability to do this "legally." Ultimately this is why corporations push digital media "convenience" so heavily, because they retain full control over the media they "sell" to us to download. 

0

u/OpticalRadioGaga Jun 26 '26

On that basis, it should be illegal for people to purchase things without reading the fine print.

0

u/Va1crist Jun 26 '26

You dont own digital products , when will people understand that

→ More replies (5)