These services should be forbidden from using the phrase "Buy it now" if they do not mean it. The phrase should be "License it now" or "Get a license" so people know what they are getting into.
They should be forced to commit to a specific time period that the rental is available and failing to do so is considered fraud. Failing to list the time period is considered equivalent to perpetuity and they should be forced to provide the content in perpetuity, regardless of their circumstances.
Oh, and if it seems unfair to do so and they don't like it, they're perfectly free to not sell that content at all. It's a free country right?
Agree. Given their license agreements, it should even specify something like "rent for at least x years", x being a number of years compatible with their own license agreement. If they have a 1 year agreement with the copyright holders, x can’t be greater than 1.
Transparency is the only way to make sure there’s no bullshit for the customer. Also maybe they would need to adjust prices, as they’re no way I’m gonna pay full price for a 1 year license (which is effectively what I’m paying for).
I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to say that they're selling you a good or that you're buying it when what you're actually paying for is a revocable license to use/access it at their discretion. But it's not quite as clear when the purchase includes a physical good that is purchased and also a revocably licensed digital good. That's still (at least partially) a purchase. I think the more relevant issue here is the extent to which a company's assets can be separated from its contractual obligations during an acquisition.
We need to use simple language that everyone understands. "Rent" is the right word for this transaction. Sellers hate it because no one like rent at buy prices.
> These services should be forbidden from using the phrase "Buy it now" if they do not mean it. The phrase should be "License it now" or "Get a license" so people know what they are getting into. Words have power.
Web browser userscript/extension to change the terminology on purchase pages of major vendors?
Except that the customers did buy it - they bought physical DVDs! They could have kept those, probably did, and if so, can still watch them!
What Sony is doing here is shitty, but it's a long way from removing access to digital content which people have paid for, which is what the title suggests.
The customers thought they had bought a DVD and an access code. Just because there was also a physical product in the bundle does not absolve Sony of any blame.
Tell you what, I'll sell you my house for 100$ but at any time I can take back all but the doormat. You still have access to some part of what you bought so we are all good right? As for 'buying the physical dvd', that is just bad plastic because they can't actually use the data on it in any modern way. By law they can't rip it and view it with modern devices so they clearly never 'owned' anything.
This would only be true if Sony offered a physical or downloadable version of the content that the users could keep using after they removed online access.
Fire, theft, misplaced/lost, water damage, tiny kid damages the disc, so on and so forth. Keeping something sometimes is out of our control.
>... but it's a long way from removing access to digital content which people have paid for, which is what the title suggests.
They're literally pulling content they paid for. They bought this knowing they would get a physical copy and streaming access. They paid for both, and now part of that "both" is being taken away.
genocidicbunny|2 years ago
They should be forced to commit to a specific time period that the rental is available and failing to do so is considered fraud. Failing to list the time period is considered equivalent to perpetuity and they should be forced to provide the content in perpetuity, regardless of their circumstances.
Oh, and if it seems unfair to do so and they don't like it, they're perfectly free to not sell that content at all. It's a free country right?
thiht|2 years ago
Transparency is the only way to make sure there’s no bullshit for the customer. Also maybe they would need to adjust prices, as they’re no way I’m gonna pay full price for a 1 year license (which is effectively what I’m paying for).
Maybe it’s hard to sell, but it’s the truth
thfuran|2 years ago
alpaca128|2 years ago
indymike|2 years ago
mattclarkdotnet|2 years ago
“Lease this content for 10 years” is a deal that makes perfect sense, even if the sellers might hate it
nulld3v|2 years ago
yencabulator|2 years ago
shiroiuma|2 years ago
Minor49er|2 years ago
walterbell|2 years ago
Web browser userscript/extension to change the terminology on purchase pages of major vendors?
kevin_thibedeau|2 years ago
tacocataco|2 years ago
whoitwas|2 years ago
ssalka|2 years ago
/s
anamax|2 years ago
twic|2 years ago
What Sony is doing here is shitty, but it's a long way from removing access to digital content which people have paid for, which is what the title suggests.
yencabulator|2 years ago
jmward01|2 years ago
smcleod|2 years ago
jjulius|2 years ago
Fire, theft, misplaced/lost, water damage, tiny kid damages the disc, so on and so forth. Keeping something sometimes is out of our control.
>... but it's a long way from removing access to digital content which people have paid for, which is what the title suggests.
They're literally pulling content they paid for. They bought this knowing they would get a physical copy and streaming access. They paid for both, and now part of that "both" is being taken away.