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

Article URL: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/07/15/sony-deletes-a-bunch-more-movies-from-the-accounts-of-people-who-bought-them/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933419

Points: 668

# Comments: 417

Hacker News 讨论

668 points · 417 comments · 查看原帖

Nevermark
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 "resuming" their "perpetual" license with another provider. 4. Motivate the avoidance of revocations, as who wants to have anti-sales. Maybe there are good reasons for revocations. Fine, but purchasers should not "Get" randomly screwed, while the seller who had control of their sourcing arrangements loses nothing. "Get" instead of "Buy" does not address the problem. If "Get" requires the user to gamble, it should be "Gamble". "Get for five years" or "Get for 5 viewings" woul
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.
goldenarm
IANAL, but is it illegal to have a "Buy" button that is just a disguised "Rent" button? If not, should we change the law?
WalterGR
For more recent takes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48747389 - "Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For" (reclaimthenet.org) 636 points | 15 days ago | 304 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48730904 - "Sony erases digital content from libraries" (arstechnica.com) 184 points | 16 days ago | 76 comments
trencedamp
I read recently that PlayStation users are moving to PC en masse, and also Xbox has been gutted by layoffs, and there's a backlash against Nintendo for the switch 2 pricing. Is the age of the console finally coming to an end?
robin_reala
Obviously media permanence is the best solution, but in the absence of that we just need laws that say that if the purchase isn’t time limited to something a reasonable user would consider a rental (48hrs? a week?) then companies that withdraw access rights need to refund in full the purchase cost.
supermatt
It's not rocket science. If they want to revoke a license, they should buy it back at the price they sold it. Consumer law should dictate there be no permissible alternative, and should apply retroactively. Personally, I dont like theses digital "purchase" licenses at all. The only "rights" DRM is used for is to restrict those of the consumer - a far cry from the transferable digital rights that big-media touted that resulted in them receiving overreaching protections for copyright in the first place. Unless they are transferable, all digital licenses should be short term (<= 1mo) and marked clearly as a rental to avoid consumer confusion.
not_your_vase
This has happened dozens of times, and it will keep happening as long as people don't care about it. Long live offline physical media, and The Pirate Bay.