Sony Deletes More Movies From Accounts of People Who 'Bought' Them (techdirt.com) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: In 2022, due to "evolving licensing agreements" with distributor StudioCanal, German and Austrian users had hundreds of movies disappear from their PS accounts, long after buying them through Sony. Then in 2023, it happened again in America, specifically when Sony ended its licensing agreement with Discovery after the Warner Bros. merger, which, of course, has since been bought by Paramount Skydance. That resulted in customers having hundreds and hundreds of episodes of TV shows deleted from their accounts. Nowhere in any of this were there refunds, of course. No recompense at all, actually. Just a thing you thought you'd bought taken away from you by the very people you thought you bought it from.
And now it's happening again. Due to another licensing agreement fallout with StudioCanal, hundreds of movies and TV shows are being ripped from the accounts of PS Store customers, and there appears to be fuck all that they can do about it. [Kotaku reports:] "This news was brought to people's attention by X user somatyk, who posted the notification they had received from PlayStation this week. Along with the unapologetic news that the purchased movies would be deleted from their account on September 1, the message concluded with, 'Click here for a full list of affected titles that will no longer be supported. Thank you.' The same warning is now reproduced in full on the PlayStation website, along with the list of 551 films and TV series that are being pulled from people's libraries."
As Kotaku notes later in their post, part of what is striking in all of this is the sheer mundanity of the announcement. Because there have been no consequences, or any action at all from the public or government, Sony treats this all as if it's perfectly normal and no big deal. You can tell me all you want about how the Ts and Cs in these purchases do in fact note that the nature of the purchase is a temporary licensing of the content for an undetermined time period... but I can promise you that the public in general doesn't understand that. They think they're buying a thing, not a license.
And now it's happening again. Due to another licensing agreement fallout with StudioCanal, hundreds of movies and TV shows are being ripped from the accounts of PS Store customers, and there appears to be fuck all that they can do about it. [Kotaku reports:] "This news was brought to people's attention by X user somatyk, who posted the notification they had received from PlayStation this week. Along with the unapologetic news that the purchased movies would be deleted from their account on September 1, the message concluded with, 'Click here for a full list of affected titles that will no longer be supported. Thank you.' The same warning is now reproduced in full on the PlayStation website, along with the list of 551 films and TV series that are being pulled from people's libraries."
As Kotaku notes later in their post, part of what is striking in all of this is the sheer mundanity of the announcement. Because there have been no consequences, or any action at all from the public or government, Sony treats this all as if it's perfectly normal and no big deal. You can tell me all you want about how the Ts and Cs in these purchases do in fact note that the nature of the purchase is a temporary licensing of the content for an undetermined time period... but I can promise you that the public in general doesn't understand that. They think they're buying a thing, not a license.
Same answers as before: (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Sony should be forced to refund the original purchases, no matter how old they are. If the consumer was only "borrowing" the media, then Sony was only "borrowing" the money.
2. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of Rum. IE Piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Same answers as before: (Score:5, Informative)
1. adjusted for inflation + interest + inconvenience fee (sufficient to allow the customer to purchase the media from another vendor).
Sony should feel a financial pressure (as well as political and social pressure) to do what is necessary to secure the license rights to what they previously promised their customers.
Re: (Score:3)
At least to be like Steam - it is understood that people who buy things get said license in perpetuity.
IE they might buy a 10 year license for SELLING said titles, but they still get to provide said titles to those that purchased them after the license expired.
It sounds like Sony, for what was probably a trivial savings, wrote bad contracts. Or their system can't handle not having something for sale yet still downloadable by those who have previously purchased it.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like Sony, for what was probably a trivial savings, wrote bad contracts.
Bad for their customers, yes. Good for Sony, as long as they don't get busted for claiming to sell what they clearly were only renting out, and they clearly knew this if they didn't secure a perpetual license.
Anyone "buying" a digital good which doesn't come with the inherent ability to use it later (like a GOG download) isn't buying it. While it should be illegal to claim you're selling to those people instead of just renting, they are also being fools if they think they own that.
Not good for Sony (Score:2)
Probably not as good for Sony, like I said, the money they saved on the contracts was probably minimal to nothing, now they're eating a whole lot of bad press over it. For those who have lost the titles and care, how likely are they to buy from Sony again?
Re:Same answers as before: (Score:4, Informative)
I've been on the 'bottle of rum train' for a LONG while now. It's simply not worth it to either maintain a half dozen monthly subs or try to "buy" movies that still can only be watched in certain specific ways.
Especially when you can buy VPN per year for what netflix charges per month...and then watch nearly anything at any time on any device and share with anyone else who also wants to watch it.
Re: (Score:3)
*Holds up my cat looking sad*
"If haz not own, why button sez 'Buy'?"
Re: Same answers as before: (Score:2)
The same is not at all true in download stores like PSN. It says "buy movie" everywhere (with a clause in the terms and conditions that literally says when Sony write buy, they don't mean buying). If it clearly stated that you're buying a streaming access token that can be removed at any time without a refund, there wouldn't be this reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they are not interested in a refund.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to be largely anti-piracy. The fact the corps have decided to abuse copyright at a level I never thought was possible means I don't give a stuff any more. Especially about movies, where the participants were paid already.
Pass the rum.
If they want to continue this "Digital downloads" shit, they can find a way to make it absolutely impossible for anyone to remove something from a library that was sold as being there indefinitely. Maybe allow people to download an encrypted version and put the key in es
Re: (Score:2)
1. Sony should be forced to refund the original purchases, no matter how old they are. If the consumer was only "borrowing" the media, then Sony was only "borrowing" the money. 2. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of Rum. IE Piracy.
3. Download it off a torrent site, wait to get threatened by the copyright owner, show them proof that you purchased the product. If they sue you anyway, counter-sue both the copyright owner and Sony for conspiracy to defraud. Ask for seven figures on account of their vexatious litigation.
Torrenting (Score:2)
This might not work out the way you think. Generally speaking, with torrenting, you are not prosecuted for downloading the media. The prosecution is for UPLOADING the media, at least fragments of it, to others.
You'd need to set yourself up as an absolute leech - 0% upload. Might take a while to get the media file in that case. In which case one is unlikely to get the threatening letter in the first place.
Yes, the court system is nitpicky enough for that to matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but this is not only wrong, it's terribly embarrassing given your really low Slashdot ID. You don't download "off a torrent site" but using the bittorrent network, a p2p file-sharing thing. As such, you are also DISTRIBUTING the work and you certainly have no rights to do so, this is how they get you, and it's really risky, as they can claim really high damages.
Re: (Score:2)
It is generally possible to download without uploading. You'll just likely get a dribble of data when you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Anytime I've rented or borrowed something, from an actual place, they have placed a defined return date on it.
"We'll revoke access when we feel like it" doesn't sound like a proper rental. How do I know I'll even be able to finish watching the movie once before it is revoked?
The courts generally require contracts to have "mutual interest" or whatever the term is. Basically, both parties have to get something out of the deal. I pay the money, I get access to the movie.
If the rental period is indefinite, t
Slow learners (Score:5, Insightful)
You can tell me all you want about how the Ts and Cs in these purchases do in fact note that the nature of the purchase is a temporary licensing of the content for an undetermined time period... but I can promise you that the public in general doesn't understand that. They think they're buying a thing, not a license.
People still don't realize if it's in the cloud, it can disappear anytime. Unless you have a playable copy in your hand, you have no permanent ownership. Games, movies, programs, any online service, it's all the same.
Yet another lesson...
Re: Slow learners (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The key is getting
Re: (Score:3)
I used to feel the same but I've become more convinced over last 5 years that physical ownership is also precarious. It's highly likely that optical drives won't be generally available in the near future, and it's already an issue that physical media often has limited runs and isn't available at a reasonable price outside the release window
I've honestly taken to purchasing extras of my physical players once I know they are quality and stashing the spare in a cool, dry place. Most of these last me a good long time, and there's no reason at all that one stored properly will break just sitting there. Don't ever attach them to the network, so they can't get over-the-wire update that intentionally break compatibility with various formats, and you should be set for at least a couple decades or more.
Re: (Score:3)
... there's no reason at all that one stored properly will break just sitting there.
That's probably a little closer to being true than it once was; but any electronic device which contains electrolytic capacitors should be powered up every once in a while to keep the dielectrics formed and the oxide layers intact.
That's especially true of digital devices whose input voltage can't be raised slowly by using a Variac; theres's an (admittedly small) risk of damage or data corruption, as the different voltage rails may reach their spec'd voltages at different times.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably way less true than it once was, because we used to build things with meaningful safety factors, and because all of these devices have flash storage in them now and it's subject to bitrot.
Re: (Score:2)
Good call on the bitrot. I'm not sure about the "safety factors" angle though - I think they always compromised on that a bit in consumer gear.
Then again, counterfeit components have become a thing, so even if the specs indicate a good safety margin the actual part may be shite.
Re: Slow learners (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why i buy my games on GOG. For example. Unless computers and mass storage disappears, there will be backups for a long time. Music is also buyable. For the rest: The high seas.
Re: (Score:2)
Cracked game installers run off your hard drive and never connect to their server (like old games as there was no servers!).
I had to download "V for Vendetta" recently as my BluRay program wasn't happy about something. I had to pirate media that I actually paid for a physical version of.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been a few musicians that have been trying to redirect the kids away from cassette tape nostalgia to CD nostalgia. The reason is simple, in 2026 its cheaper to burn a CD than it is to manufacture a cassette tape. And CDs are vastly superior (the relative virtues of Vinyl and CD are a little more complicated, though on pure technicalities, CD still wins).
The thing with CDs is a DIY home musician can do the whole manufacturing chain at home. You buy one of those cheap laser screen printer engravers
Re: Slow learners (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the physical copy in hand doesn't guarantee continued possession. Besides just needing to protect the disc from things like fire, physical abuse, and more, an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two.
Re:Slow learners (Score:4, Insightful)
"an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two."
If only there was some way to take the data on a DVD and move it to a computer. Maybe "brute force it". We could use the term "rip"!
Then backups with redundancy would turn a decade or two in to a generation or ten. ...if only...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but once one is ripping, the important part is the digital copy without DRM under your control, not the DVD itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather gouge both of my eyes out than watch a VHS tape. You are welcome to join us in the 21st century at any time.
Re: Slow learners (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is a playable copy? Are you sure your copy does not contain an expiring certificate and won't be playable after even when you "own" it on your pc?
Re: (Score:2)
"Unless you have a playable copy in your hand"
The player keys for your devices can be revoked. The HDCP key for your devices can be revoked.
Re: Slow learners (Score:2)
If you can't copy it... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't own it.
You can extend this to hardware as well. If you're not allowed to repair or modify something... you don't own it.
This (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why piracy is on the rise. If buying isn't owning then ... well you know the rest. Corporate fucktards.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it, though? Seems like everyone I know is paying their monthly fees and just streaming what they want to watch. And indeed if you only plan to watch something once, there's no point in buying it on media.
Re:This (Score:5, Insightful)
"erm it's not akshually property"
nothing actually gets owned --> nothing actually gets taken
So I'm not buying the movie, I'm buying the license. OK. I'm also not pirating the movie, I'm pirating the license. And if they don't care about taking a license away from me that I've paid for, I don't care about taking a license away from them that I have not. Feels quite comfortable being exactly as ethical as they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmmm... interesting approach. Is the license "permission" to watch it from sony during the duration of their contract, or do I "own" the movie, but not how it's presented through Sony, in this case.
If it's the latter, copy/rip the media.
A short aside:
I have a fairly large audible account. I noticed about 10 years ago, I still have books in my queue, but I'm unable to download/listen to them. Audible explained the licence to me, told me that it should appear back in my "library" eventually but might tak
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I see it, it shouldn't matter whether or not Sony retains the rights to sell licenses for some content, unless they explicitly stated that at the point of sale. I never had a PlayStation account, so I don't know how that process works. I know that on Amazon, it says RENT or BUY. If Amazon told me it couldn't play something in my library of purchased things because of licensing, I would pitch a fit and take
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issues buying a licence.
If the licence is something like the one from Dos, Windows XP, Adobe CS6 or something of that nature.
Once you pay, you have the licence to use it for basically as long as you want.
Am not interested in temporary licences, unless they specially say it's a lease for a specific time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
"erm it's not akshually property"
nothing actually gets owned --> nothing actually gets taken
In the scenario described in TFS, the customer "actually gets owned" and "actually gets taken"...
After all, owning customers is the entire goal of corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing actually gets owned --> nothing actually gets taken
nothing actually gets owned --> claiming it was sold to the customer is fraud
Physical media (Score:3)
And even then you only own it if you can resell it.
'
so if I go to an sony store and delete stuff off t (Score:2)
so if I go to an sony store and delete stuff off the shift it's not shoplifting?
This really shows that possession is 9/10ths (Score:2)
of the law.
The only true way to guard against this is to have the physical DVD's. (Sorry Blu-ray, you're not completely decryptable yet).
One day, those DVD's you find at the swap meet and on places like Craigslist are going to become valuable. This will happen once the general public has had enough of the shenanigans the movie industry is using against its customers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of why I buy DVDs (and other physical media) still. The only real concern I have will be when my DVD/Bluray player dies - finding replacement hardware is getting more difficult. some of the major brands (samsung) have stopped selling that hardware, and most of what's left is either over-the-top expensive, or cheaply made, no-name tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The time plus the cost of the media does not let that make sense for something you paid less than $20 for in the first place.
I dunno. The twenty-bucks-plus-copying-time spent on something you value and care about - which may be MUCH more expensive or even simply unavailable a few years hence - sounds like the very definition of an appreciating asset.
That's bad, but so is the author. (Score:2)
That said, Sony owes people refunds. Even if they, the reseller, lost their license to resell, that shouldn't impact the consumer who purchased their own license. If Pax8 was suddenly unable to sell M365 licenses, I'd expect my tenants to keep working regardless.
I suspect this is the sort of thing that could garner bipartisan support if someone in
Disappointing (Score:2)
Has this become the norm? Or is this mostly just Sony entering into shite agreements because "fuck the users"?
Re: (Score:2)
Has this become the norm? Or is this mostly just Sony entering into shite agreements because "fuck the users"?
It's the norm because it makes the licensing agreements slightly cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Disappointing (Score:2)
It is on Fandango (neé Vudu) and I believe Apple. But those are independent platforms, and at least in Vudu's case, streaming was their entire reason for existing. The Playstation X is a transient platform, never intended to be in operation more than a decade later. Sony's not going to pay for perpetual license when they plan to obsolete the entire platform ever 8 years.
Sony is committing piracy (Score:3)
Meh! A merkins (Score:2, Informative)
And now we know (Score:5, Informative)
Why more people are buying DVDs/blu-ray. They have the movie. They own it. It can't be taken from them. It won't change.
The same with books. No worrying that your digital copy will mysteriously disappear one night. You have the book. You bought it. It's yours. The words won't change.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets WORSE! (Score:3)
"If buying isn't owning..... (Score:4, Informative)
... then piracy isn't stealing."
Re: "If buying isn't owning..... (Score:3)
Correct. It's piracy. It's right there in the name.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulation is needed (Score:2)
I don't understand how this isn't being litigated (Score:3)
I guess it probably is. But surely there is either settled case law on this or active litigation?
How low the mighty have fallen... (Score:2)
Sony publishes this on Jun 24, 2026, Ars Techinca (for example) picked up the news on Jun 29, 2026,
https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]
Other outlets picked it up around the same time... there was a hoopla online, youtube videos, outrage galore,
Slashdot picks it up on Jul 16, 2026...
And is not even a dupe...
How low the mighty have fallen...
What is the case to come here anymore?
then surely.... (Score:2)
Any "purchase" that can be unilaterally revoked at any time (days or even years after the fact) at the sole discretion of the seller isn't a purchase at all, so labeling it as such is blatantly false advertising.
Re: then surely.... (Score:2)
If you want to own things... (Score:2)
Until then you only think you own things.
Thank you Sony & Co (Score:2)
Whatever is in a possible "cloud" is not yours. The actual owner can do whatever it wants with it. Especially people who put "money" before "humans".
I couldn't believe the message "Click here for a full list of affected titles that will no longer be supported. Thank you." . So I looked at the Playstation website [playstation.com]...
This is really disgusting!
The only decent explanation I could think of i sthat it has been generated by some Artificial "Intelligence".
If you bought them, download and save them ! (Score:2)
profits (Score:2)
Re: profits (Score:2)
Your first clue (Score:2)
...about intellectual property "value" is that you couldn't snap your vinyl in half and get the CD for the price of reproduction plus sales, since you'd already bought the "intellectual property value".
You'd bought that, too, when you bought the vinyl, but they didn't respect YOUR intellectual property rights, did they?
Not saying they had some legal obligation, but I've laughed ever since at the attempt to morally shame intellectual property "thieves". Now, people who paid for intellectual property rights
I suspect (Score:2)
"part of what is striking in all of this is the sheer mundanity of the announcement. Because there have been no consequences "
They got away with it in the US, but I think the EU will be a whole different shootin' match
Here's hoping the EU will hand Sony a nasty surprise
And this isn't at all like... (Score:2)
...when Amazon deleted 1984.
And you wonder why I buy CDs and DVDs?
Click "I Agree" ... (Score:2)
... to acknowledge that we're going to take your money for a product but you don't own it.
This is why click through agreements should be illegal. Unfortunately, all the lobby money is on the corporate side of the agreement.
Anyone whose had their assumed to be property, as well as everyone concerned about this, contact their congress critters about how anti-consumer this crap is. Of course you'll have to wait, at least, to the end of this administration.
That explains it (Score:2)
Re:Upfront prices lower? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony hates you. The rootkit incident of 2005 proves this. Stop giving Sony your money people. They hate you. They will continue to hate you. They will always hate you. They have hate in their heart and are willing to let it out.
Re:Upfront prices lower? (Score:5, Informative)
Sony hates you. The rootkit incident of 2005 proves this. Stop giving Sony your money people. They hate you. They will continue to hate you. They will always hate you. They have hate in their heart and are willing to let it out.
Sony is a big company with many divisions that do their own things and operate with their customers in their own ways. That being said, there does seem to be some consistency here. Many years ago when i lived in San Diego, a guy I knew worked for Sony Online Entertainment and he worked on Star Wars Galaxies. I recall how at a party he gleefully told stories about how players would complain about certain things, and the mods would actively punish and ban them for complaining about imbalance and lack of features. He wasn't directly involved with the infamous Teleport them into Space [penny-arcade.com] situation, but he knew people who were and laughed about it, and as a player when I said that seems kind of bad service to your customer his response was that "why should we care, we're Sony, we're the best and those players f*ing deserved it". The guy was a a total POS, and my admittedly long ago and minimal experience suggests they, at least at that time, hired that type.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Sony is a big company with many divisions that do their own things and operate with their customers in their own ways
True, but I struggle to believe the really nice people of the world grow up to be directors and other influential people in any sony divisions. Whilst "your" division might be one of the nicer ones, you can bet that the others pressure the nice ones to 'conform'. It's hard to be the one nice person in a room full of dicks.
Personally, I've long since had enough of Sony. They arguably make
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate? I doubt that. I would say that Sony's relationship to their "customers" is like that of a farmer to a herd of cattle: something to be dispassionately harvested for monetary gain.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and it's only gotten worse since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and it wasn’t even Sony, it was at a rival company that got bought out after the rootkit was made but before it became a scandal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Upfront prices lower? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are already provisions for 'hair cuts' and similar theft.
Dodd-Frank gave the FDIC the ability to treat similar seniority creditors differently in resolutions, for 'systemic stability' which is not well defined. So if you have a bond in a failing bank and the current administration does not like you... to bad....
Temporary though it might be the pandemic legislation (cares act? I think it was) also created force majeure where if you'd owner financed a residence and the buy decided to just not pay, dea
Re: (Score:2)
Several States just passed laws requiring the legislation to fund the DMV in order to create minimum wait times and as soon as they did that the DMV was fine and there was no complaints anymore about bureaucrats.
Requiring that people would have to wait at least a few hours at the DMV seems like a costly and ineffective way to discourage voting, but if you think it will work, I'm willing to give it a shot.
You know you're not important enough (Score:2)
I don't think you're comment is a bot. You seem real.
Once they take away my vote your vote no longer matters because they don't need you to vote for them to win because I'm not able to vote against them.
That's kind of how this mess works. People you disagree with lose the right to vote. That means your side no longer needs elections to win. That means the people in charge of you get to tell you what to do and there's nobody a
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the joke.
You suggested that government-mandated minimum wait times at the DMV solved voting enrollment problems. It the problem can be solved by making a chore suck more, the problem must be that too many people are registering to vote.
Re: (Score:2)