you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 2 years ago (15 children)

Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Doubtful. TOS would state that you're only licensing the media. If the media no longer exists, the license no longer exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Day 10,490 of saying it should be flatly illegal to call a lease a purchase. Companies should never be allowed to use language that implies ownership of a product when what you're buying is a permanently revokable temporary lease.

    "But it's in the TOS, what they're doing is perfectly legal" yeah the problem is that it's legal

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.

    The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It's fraud.

    It's like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.


    I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it's not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (7 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Yeah you bought the right to use their license and to pull it off their servers as long as they exist. You still have that, nothing changed in that regard.

    But yeah it's a problem that buying digital stuff doesn't really mean anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I'd rather a lawyer get all the money than let Sony keep it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)