Comment by josephcsible
4 years ago
> Sony discontinued global sales of movie and TV content in August 2021, but at the time, it was promised that content already purchased would remain accessible in future.
> As of August 31, 2022, due to our evolving licensing agreements with content providers, you will no longer be able to view your previously purchased Studiocanal content and it will be removed from your video library
Sounds about right for Sony.
I really hate Sony.
I had a Sony Bravia TV for several years, and bought it because it came with a "Netflix compatible" sticker.
Netflix however wasn't really compatible from the get-go, and they promised it would work in the next upgrade. I wasn't in US/EU so simply returning it wasn't possible.
They kept promising it would work in the next upgrade, and I would upgrade, even though each time it was making the TV incredibly sluggish.
Eventually five or six years passed and the TV stopped receiving upgrades and it never had Netflix.
Older Sony Bravia TVs that just barely met the specs for streaming applications had to go through such roundabout ways to actually stream the content. They did not support the latest streaming standards (DASH/HLS) and basically had to stream raw MP4 files. They were a very exceptional case device at least at Prime Video. Newer devices obviously supported the regular streaming standards.
At this point (and even 5 years ago), getting a little streaming HDMI stick will provide an infinitely better customer experience for a ~$35 investment. Most smart TVs just don't have a great user experience compared to the devices designed around that.
So, like someone else suggested, it was plain false advertisement.
I mean, it was probably Netflix compatible via HDMI? I don't see the problem here.
\s
You're joking but at some point they really used this argument.
Doesn't your country have laws against false advertisement? Such bullshit would have gotten them a (not huge, but still, it's a Matt of principle) fine in the EU.
> Such bullshit would have gotten them a (not huge, but still, it's a Matt of principle) fine in the EU.
This was brought to the EU and the EU didn't do anything
They did but since I believed their promises for too long I was the sucker stuck with a shitty TV.
Seems like they should have agreed on better licensing agreements.
I see the point for subscription based services, but in this case they should have an agreement to continue streaming for those who have purchased it. The content provider has been paid for it too, right?
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think licensing agreements like this is not enough in a consumer court. When you purchase something, the consumer expects to be able to access it for as long as the distributor exists.
The services use the term "Purchase" or "Buy". If that is not actually the case, they should call it something else. Otherwise it is misleading the consumers, no matter where they hide the small print in the license agreement.
At a minimum I would expect a refund, as they are no longer providing the service that was paid for.
If complaining and asking for a refund doesn't yield a result, you will have a very hard time finding a lawyer to get this through the courts, given the rather marginal value of the content that you "purchased".
I believe some European countries employ government officials who prosecute attacks on consumers that violate consumer protection laws
If you have "purchased" a decent collection of these films, it'd probably be worth your time going to the small claims court.
why are we "expected" to honor their copyright for eternity when they do not honor their commitments ala "evolving licensing agreements".
what if i honored your copyright as long as it "suited me", then one day it didnt.
Due to my evolving licensing disagreement, I use torrents for all my movies and TV show watching needs.
> what if i honored your copyright as long as it "suited me", then one day it didnt.
That is already how consumers behave. You're living the dream right now!
Legal repurcussions differ. IMO it comes down to: what’s the likelihood someone pursues me, and will I survive the expected cost of my defense. Nobody likes love letters anyway.
Individuals may have a lower risk, but the cost is high if someone decides to come after you. Large corporations can take the legal costs far more easily.
2 replies →
Because we have little money for lawyers, while they have much money for lawyers
You're confusing the creator with the distributor platform
You don't get to steal from a musician because Sony cheated you
.
> why are we "expected" to honor their copyright
Because you don't want to be a thief
.
> they do not honor their commitments
They do, in fact.
It seems like you just assumed they committed to something they didn't, and are angry now that you've finally read the actual commitment.
.
> what if i honored your copyright as long as it "suited me", then one day it didnt.
Then you'd be a thief who pointed fingers at other people to justify your own choices
>You don't get to steal from a musician because Sony cheated you
elsevier copyrights papers on their own name. should we fuck with them ?
>It seems like you just assumed they committed to something they didn't, and are angry now that you've finally read the actual commitment.
sony committed to keep those movies but now they are backtracking on that commitment. why?
2 replies →