[TheNorthman]

Read your own article. The byline reads:

> Google is taking the unprecedented step of paying back users for all the games they bought on its cloud gaming platform.

Google _voluntarily_ refunded their customers. It's unheard of and was, frankly, extremely unexpected. Good for Google and good for Stadia customers.

[bakugo]

I really don't like the idea that refunds make theft acceptable (and don't tell me this is not theft, because it is)

If someone broke into my house, stole something worth $100 and left behind $100 in cash, that wouldn't make it not theft, so why should this be different? If I buy a product, I should have full control over it for the purposes of personal use, nobody should have the right to take it from me without my consent, that's stealing and a refund doesn't justify it. If a corporation can do this and get away with it, the law has failed.

[DarkmSparks]

In the same article it points out microsoft also refunded their ebooks when they deleted content people bought.

Assuming these were sold as a perpetual licence (and by the wording Sony used it looks like they were), by removing the content they are in breach of contract, that gets expensive and messy quickly, quicker easier and cheaper just to refund them.

There is obviously some kind of legal disagreement happening between Sony and Discovery, I doubt this is the end of it.

[Mindwipe]

The terms will have said the license was perpetual for downloads made but only five years for redownload or streaming, as do the terms for iTunes, Amazon Prime Video, Google Play, YouTube's store, Vudu and every significant player in the market.

[londons_explore]

Ths smart move is to only refund users who get their lawyer to write a letter.

[voidwtf]

Voluntary refunds like this are often the result of a risk assessment. What is the risk to their brand, what is their risk legally. One could argue that they only did this to avoid damage to their brand and the damage to the industry if it had become the catalyst to laws changing around content licensing.

I hope PlayStation does not refund customers and that this is the catalyst we need to change content licensing to consumers. A purchased license should cross transcend platform lock-in and the removal of content from a given platform. If no platform exists for your content to be consumed then you should have the legal right to download the content.

It should not be legal to sell a perpetual or indefinite license on a specific platform. If it was clear that the license was only valid for x number of years consumers could factor that into their purchasing decision.

[Mindwipe]

This already happened with Canal content on the PlayStation video store a few years back (and that unquestionably affected orders of magnitudes more customers).

Nothing will change about this legally, nor the vast majority of customers seemingly care very much.

[lokar]

But it was not really unprecedented. They gave full refunds when they shut down Google video.