[Wowfunhappy]

> due to our content licensing agreements

Aka, due to their mistake. When Sony originally signed an agreement, they should have insisted on a perpetual license for anything already in the customer's library.

I was initially inclined toward some minimal sympathy for Sony here, but I see no good faith reason why they'd sign a licensing agreement which allows the other party to do this.

[wat10000]

A mistake suggests that it's accidental and they didn't mean it. To the extent a corporation can know things, they knew exactly how this was set up. This is fraud.

[TheCondor]

A friend and I were talking about this. What would you pay for it?

When iTunes + came out, you had 2 options, you could buy a song for $0.99 or you could be the plus version for more, I don't remember but it was like $1.35 or something. Plus had a higher bit rate and it wasn't encrypted.

Suppose you could buy a movie for $12.00, how much would you pay for the forever version? $30?

[jerf]

I feel like you're kind of making this more complicated than it actually is, either because you're overcomplicating it or because you're trying to tee up some rhetorical point, but the answer to your question is really quite simple and objective: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=movie&rh=p_n_format_browse-bin%3A...

You don't need to ask a hypothetical, the market has an answer.

To the extent your reply is "but that's not exactly what my question is", my point is that the market is already pricing all sorts of situations and the market would have no problem pricing just one more possibility into the already complicated market. Including "piracy", and people like me who are treating the vast majority of DVDs and BluRays as just a delivery mechanism for streams rather than "discs".

[Netcob]

Depends on what those $12 "buy" me. In Sony's case, "buying" meant "renting until Sony's license expires", which they could have displayed on the product page.

I very rarely re-watch movies within a few months. So if I buy one, I want to know that I can watch it again in one, 10 or 30 years (if the format can still be played). Which is not guaranteed even with blu-rays mostly thanks to DRM. But what I'd be buying is not having to think about any deadlines.

If I'm okay with a deadline, I might as well rent the movie for a weekend, in which case I expect it to be less than $12.

[burnte]

My problem is that they told me *I* was buying a license. I didn't know I was actually buying a sublicense that was dependent upon Sony's.

I didn't buy any of the show, but that's the core here. Sony lied.

[madduci]

If I buy a DVD, it costs a fixed price.

Why should it be variable, if we talk about digital media? Storage and content streaming is cheaper than embracing a whole logistic (producing DVDs/BlueRays, packaging, shipping).

But here we are again: if you buy something digital, you just pay for a "usage license", you don't own anything at all. After all these years or decades, I am still surprised that people expect to own digital content, forever

[jmull]

> I am still surprised that people expect to own digital content, forever

Well, that's how it's sold. The buttons say something like "Rent"/"Buy" not "Short Term Rental"/"Indeterminate Term Rental".

To be an internet consumer you have to have some level of confidence in the good faith of the seller, including that the basic description of what's being sold is accurate. Otherwise, you wouldn't consider sending your money at all. Probably most people see "Sony" and trust that brand not to scam them.

But so as much anymore.

[petterroea]

Is it radical to (through regulation) force part of the sales figure to go towards a trust that pays for CDN hosting+some simple server for authenticating ownership in the case of the service shutting down?

It could even incentivize actors to consider other options, like selling access to download the files themselves

[basisword]

With digital you're hoping the 'store' keeps it in storage for you in perpetuity so you can redownload/stream it. If you buy a DVD and lose it you can't go back for another free copy. There's definitely an issue that the original license should allow you to always download and backup your copy DRM free so you will always have access but most people aren't going to do that. I bought lots of music/video content from iTunes over the years and rarely back it up. The fact I can just stream it/redownload it from them is very useful but it's also unreasonable for me to expect that Apple should be hosting my 99¢ purchase for the rest of time.

[onion2k]

it's also unreasonable for me to expect that Apple should be hosting my 99¢ purchase for the rest of time

That's fair so long as it was made clear at the time of purchase that you aren't buying the song, and that you're only renting it for a while. If they didn't put a clear explanation that you might lose access on the page when you clicked buy, and not buried deep in a 50 page EULA, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that Apple can afford to keep a 5MB file available for streaming forever, or until Apple closes down its streaming services.

[thesuitonym]

That's not a great example, because once I pay Apple I can copy the song to my local device and keep it myself. I would hope Apple would keep it on their servers ready for me for the rest of my life, but if I don't I can still access my purchases.

[triceratops]

> With digital you're hoping the 'store' keeps it in storage for you in perpetuity so you can redownload/stream it.

Not necessarily. What if the store didn't have to do that?

[mvanbaak]

There's a big difference between owning content, and having access to download content. The problem here is that you were not buying a version you could download and store on your system, and just play it back with whatever. So you 'bought' it while it was still under their control etc.

But like so many other comments here state: it's very much a known fact that 'buying' something like this is just renting it for a short time period. We must keep fighting for them to actually state this in bold text before you pay them.

[js2]

$1.29 - https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/05/30Apple-Launches-iTun...

18 months later the entire library became DRM-free iTunes Plus quality and you could upgrade existing songs you had already purchased or that you had in your library via iTunes Match.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-t...

[dfxm12]

Terminator 2 is currently $8 for a bluray on amazon. $10 for a DVD. This is reasonably a forever version.

[dingaling]

DVD perhaps yes, until the disc degrades.

BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc.

[dfxm12]

Ok, how long do you have to rip & copy the content as you desire? It is still reasonably a forever version. Before you bring up laws around keys, first consider that jaywalking in front of your house is illegal too. Again, it is reasonably a forever version.

[iainmerrick]

jaywalking in front of your house is illegal

In most parts of the world it’s not illegal. That’s a seriously draconian law.

[Schiendelman]

Crossing the street in a residential neighborhood is legal in almost all of the world and increasingly legal in the US as well. Many major cities started with non-enforcement and some are rolling back jaywalking laws entirely.

[DarkUranium]

A rip & copy is a breach of the DMCA (because it involves circumvention of DRM, among other things) in the US, which makes it software piracy.

And then they wonder why so many advocate for just skipping the "purchase" step when the end result is legally the same.

[lstodd]

Why even bother with all those hoops. Just download.

[dfxm12]

Oh, I was adding a pertinent point of discussion in a discussion board. It is fun. I suggest you try it.

[Anechoic]

DVD perhaps yes, until the disc degrades.

Which is the same constraint as pretty much any other physical item one might purchase. "reasonably a forever" is a reasonable description.

[threetonesun]

I know it's not the point you're making but I would enjoy a post-apocalyptic post-AI movie where they pass on the lesson of the dangers of AI through an oral recounting or stage production of T2.

[ahtihn]

> BluRay no, because your player's keys can be revoked when you pop in a new disc

Wait what? How? How is that possibly legal?

[kevin_thibedeau]

Key revocation applies to releases published after the revocation date. Old media should continue playing with a compromised device key.

[ahtihn]

That wasn't what was implied then. If old media continues playing then it's still "forever".

[gsich]

This was planned for DVDs too, but they failed miserably.

In any other case: use MakeMKV

[breezeTrowel]

You'd pay for it what you paid for it. Did the "Buy" button specify that you were buying the movie or did it say you were simply leasing the film and that it can be removed at any time due to licensing agreement over which you (as the buyer) had no control over?

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

I think it should specifically say for how long you are renting it. They knew already when the contract would expire, why renting the movie didn't say "rent for 7 years" (or whatever the timeframe was)

[9dev]

That would constitute fraud IMHO. You cannot simply make it appear as though customers bought something, when the verb buy has a very specific and crystal-clear meaning.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

Do you mean what i am suggesting is fraud? Because when Sony entered the agreement for the movies, you can definitely bet they knew how long it was going to last, and the button I am confident it said "buy" (i don't have a PlayStation).

I definitely consider it fraud, but i am a normal consumer.

[snapplebobapple]

Zero dollars. Because the marginal cost of production is zero and the movie production budget is just a sunk cost. We need to cut copyright terms back to the original term of 14 years and call it a day. Instead of the commons being ceded to benefit itself with hifher content production, the commons was just robbed to give us current copyright law

[nosrepa]

I have fond memories of buying those 99 cents songs with coke caps my grandparents collected for me that had codes for itunes on them. Then I'd burn those to a cdrw and rip them again to remove the drm. I still have those files to this day.

[ksec]

On a similar scale, if I am paying 35% more for the plus on music, I expect the same for movies around $15 or up to $18.

[lstodd]

I would pay zero. I would just use torrents.

[robinsonb5]

I would pay what I used to pay for DVDs.

[nekusar]

Right now, I won't pay a fucking cent.

I'll pirate it off of Usenet or Torrents.

I get a strictly better experience if I pirate. Whereas I'm treated like a criminal and sold a much worse experience if I pay.

So, fuck paying. I'm not going to pay for abuse.

[anonymars]

Related point: try legally playing 4k content* on your PC

* obviously I mean movies/TV/etc. and the like where you have to pay money (as in the article)

[ajsnigrutin]

They could still refund all those purchases and come out good here, but we all know they won't.