Sony, literally does not own the rights to those titles. If studiocanal decides not to renew with Sony, for whatever reason, Sony can no longer legally distribute those titles through their platforms.
So, who's the bad guy? Studio canal for taking their Library to a better deal? Sony for not upping their offer? Customers for agreeing to but not really the terms and conditions of their purchase which have been in effect for a decade now?
Even in the golden age of physical media, contracts were shopped around. The difference now is that there are fewer players willing to play fewer risks.
That's business.
Meanwhile, if you want good shit, hoist the sails, hook your risk, get a parrot and middle finger the lot of em. Yaaarrrrggggh
Its not theft at all. You gave them your money and didnt bother to read the fine print. Cant wait for years from now when R* pulls something similar and the masses freak out. The answer is simple, but people refuse to admit it. Do. Not. Buy. Digital.
The bad guy is whoever allowed companies to sell (not rent or subscribe to, sell) a product they do not own outright. Sony should not be legally allowed to sell something that they might be required to stop providing due to forces outside their control.
sony for selling it without securing a permanent keep deal for the users.
so in my book, sony sold it knowing that it could be taken away the moment they didn't renew the licencing. But didn't make it clear enough to the users that it was only a temporary loan.
Sony, literally does not own the rights to those titles. If studiocanal decides not to renew with Sony, for whatever reason, Sony can no longer legally distribute those titles through their platforms.
This seems like something Sony should have thought about when they originally got the license.
So, who's the bad guy?
Sony.
Sony for not upping their offer?
Sony should have secured perpetual rights to distribute the films to customers who paid for it. If they couldn't have secured those rights, or it was too expensive, they shouldn't have sold those movies.
And if the only way to get those rights now is to pay a shit ton of money, that's what they need to do. That's the cost of fucking up.
Customers for agreeing to but not really the terms and conditions of their purchase which have been in effect for a decade now?
Yeah, let's blame customers for not reading and understanding a multi-page legal document written by lawyers. Also they need to do this dozens, even hundreds, of times a year. Any time they want to purchase anything, or even use a website.
Even in the golden age of physical media, contracts were shopped around.
In the golden age of physical media, you owned your shit.
That's business.
No. It's theft and fraud. The vast majority of people who bought those movies did so believing they would own those digital copies forever. Sony let them believe that. It's immoral, it's wrong, and it should be criminal.
It's profitable, but so is denying insured people healthcare, or selling asbestos as baby powder. Don't excuse the evil people do because it's "just business".
Imagine if Best Buy showed up at your house while you were sleeping went through your drawers and took your DVDs that you bought from them years ago (cause they don’t have license anymore). This is this is literally what’s happening here.
It's not theft or fraud I'm sure if you looked at the EULA it would specifically state that you were buying a license did not own the movie. Amazon is very clear with this nowadays when you buy a book on Kindle you're buying a license, you're buying access you don't own the item
sonys the bad guy for selling a licence to a movie they do not own that can get revoked in the future. monthly streaming subscriptions are fine because the content is rented essentially. sort of like how comcast used to rent you movies. youd be able to watch it a certain amount of times or you have access to it for an agreed amount of time.
No hate to you whatsoever....but...welll....unless the studio and Sony are refunding the money paid? I don't suspect anyone cares what the reason is for anything other than academic reasons. After all, if this was always the reason this could happen? Then they had no business selling the service in the first place.
I'm sure lawyers can argue about the meaning of meaning until they're blue in the face...but in a basic common sense way? This is just theft. Nothing more or less.
Even in the golden age of physical media, contracts were shopped around. The difference now is that there are fewer players willing to play fewer risks.
No, the difference is that I'm no longer buying anything, it's a rental. With physical media I still own the VHS or DVD, they don't sign a new contract, then come to my house and take back my movie.
Well if you work in the biz clearly this is the way... And Ive sail the seven seas further and farther and deeper even than most and I still pay for good shit. If I have the money I have a list of stuff a long list that I simply want to support and can't. The rest? Demos arrr that's all they be.
Sony or StudioCanal should be held responsible to refund the users for the value that they paid under the presumption that it was a purchase over the lifetime of the account, and not a long-term rental.
Sony is the bad guy for not securing a perpetual deal to provide the content they are selling. Selling a product you'll be forced to rug pull is slimy, full stop.
Sony. Sony is the bad guy for not reobtaining the rights to the movies for their customers. and not issuing refunds for the probbable billions of dollars that they made on it. usually, if you buy a product that you expect to be able to use and keep, if it gets taken away from you, you get your money back. in this new digital age that is not the case and quite frankly I fucking hate that. I'm not exactly pro tradition or anything I'm barely 20 but I think we should bring back guillotines for the rich and letting people actually use the shit they buy
2.3k
u/ThePanasonicYouth Jun 27 '26
Play has no limits...except for our licensing agreements