PlayStation Is Deleting 551 Movies from Customers' Accounts

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Sony’s move to remove 551 previously “purchased” movies from PlayStation user libraries due to expired licensing deals is reigniting concerns over what consumers actually get when they click “buy” for digital media. Commenters argue that storefronts mislead people into thinking they own content, when in reality they hold revocable licenses that can vanish without refunds, and many see this as a strong incentive to favor physical media, DRM‑free purchases, or outright piracy. The episode is framed as part of a broader erosion of digital ownership and a failure of consumer protection laws to keep pace with platform-controlled licensing models.

Nature of the “Purchase” and Licensing

  • Core complaint: the PS Store “buy/purchase” button implies permanent ownership, but users actually get a revocable streaming license that can be unilaterally removed.
  • Some argue this is inherently deceptive and should be illegal unless a clear end date or minimum term is disclosed.
  • Others counter that software and digital media have long been sold as licenses; “buying” access or rights is common (concert tickets, usage rights), and ToS usually spell this out.
  • A recurring distinction: buying a physical copy vs buying a revocable license (“buy(1)” ownership vs “buy(2)” permission).

Legal and Consumer Protection Angles

  • Suggestions: sue in small claims, push unfair-terms arguments, or rely on UK/EU‑style consumer protections where reasonable expectations of “purchase” might override fine print.
  • Others note companies can remove such cases to higher courts where procedural complexity and fee-shifting make consumers likely to lose.
  • Proposed regulation:
    • If you say “buy/own/purchase,” the license must be irrevocable for existing buyers.
    • Otherwise label it explicitly as a time‑limited or revocable license.
    • Mandate that loss of distributor rights must not void existing customer access, or require refunds.

Comparisons to Other Platforms

  • Steam is praised for generally preserving delisted games for existing owners, though some examples of removals and key revocations are cited.
  • Apple is criticized for quietly losing cloud copies of purchased/streamed content; users who downloaded files fared better.
  • Subscription services (e.g., Netflix) are seen as less egregious: content loss is expected, since nothing is “bought.”

Piracy and Self‑Hosting Responses

  • Many see this as moral justification to pirate movies, arguing that if “buying” is only renting, copying isn’t “stealing,” though others stress it remains copyright infringement.
  • Detailed discussion of self‑hosted media setups: Jellyfin/Plex/Emby, NAS boxes, seedboxes, torrents, Usenet, private trackers and backup strategies.

Physical Media, DRM, and Longevity

  • Strong renewed interest in DVDs/Blu‑rays and local backups as the only reliable way to truly “own” movies.
  • Acknowledgment that discs and players physically/technically degrade and DRM (CSS, AACS, Cinavia) complicates long‑term access; legality of ripping varies by jurisdiction.

Broader Concerns and Proposals

  • Worries about increasing consolidation of digital distribution, future “enshittification,” and even quiet content alteration or censorship.
  • Some call for open ecosystems, mandatory sideloading, DRM‑free media, and company charters or laws that prioritize durable consumer rights over studio‑friendly licensing.