Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Sony’s removal of 551 StudioCanal films from PlayStation users’ libraries, despite those titles having been “purchased,” is reigniting fears that digital media ownership is effectively an illusion. Commenters argue that current licensing and DRM regimes let platforms revoke access without refunds, blurring the line between buying and renting and pushing many toward physical media, DRM‑free stores, or outright piracy. There is broad support for legal reforms to force clearer labeling of rentals versus purchases and to guarantee that paid digital content remains accessible or is fairly compensated if withdrawn.

Nature of “Purchases” and Licenses

  • Strong consensus that these were marketed as “purchases” but functionally behaved as revocable licenses.
  • Many argue that “buy” vs “rent” has an established plain‑language meaning (ownership vs time‑limited access), and that using “buy” for revocable access is deceptive.
  • Several say the only real “ownership” now is DRM‑free files you can back up yourself (or physical media), everything else is effectively rental.

Sony, StudioCanal, and Responsibility

  • Some blame is placed on StudioCanal for licensing terms that allow revocation.
  • Others argue consumers’ contract is with Sony, so Sony bears primary responsibility for selling something it couldn’t guarantee.
  • A recurring point: Sony could have refused such terms, negotiated perpetual re‑download rights, or migrated licenses elsewhere (e.g., to another store) to avoid this outcome.

Legal / Regulatory Angles

  • Calls for laws that:
    • Forbid marketing revocable licenses as “buy,” “own,” etc.
    • Require refunds or compensation if access is later revoked.
    • Treat digital purchases like physical goods, including resale/loan rights.
  • Some mention ongoing or upcoming legislation (e.g., in California and the EU) targeting misleading “buy” language and “stop killing games”–style behavior.
  • Debate over class actions: seen as likely but often yielding trivial payouts; some suggest coordinated small‑claims as more effective.

Piracy, Archiving, and Ethics

  • Very high volume of comments saying this justifies or even obliges piracy, especially for content already “purchased.”
  • Arguments range from “if buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” to viewing piracy as preservation or consumer self‑defense.
  • Others point out residuals and harms to some creators, but several claim most streaming revenues to artists are negligible.

Alternatives: Physical Media, DRM‑Free, and Platforms

  • Many advocate:
    • Physical discs and local media servers (e.g., ripping DVDs/Blu‑rays to NAS/Jellyfin).
    • DRM‑free stores (Bandcamp, GOG) and open hardware.
  • Steam is cited as relatively consumer‑friendly but still fundamentally gatekept; trust is seen as conditional and reversible.

Consumer Reactions and Broader Trend

  • Sony’s history (rootkit CDs, OtherOS removal, account bans) is repeatedly cited as a pattern of anti‑consumer behavior and a reason for long‑running boycotts.
  • Ending physical discs and shutting older stores is viewed as part of a “you will own nothing” trajectory.
  • General expectation: this won’t be the last such incident, and it is pushing many users away from mainstream digital purchases.