https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content- people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they have a chance ?
I am presuming we are talking maybe £20-£30 losses ?
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content- people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they have a chance ?
I am presuming we are talking maybe £20-£30 losses ?
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content-
people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading
will be the critical bit.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they
have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney
for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
I am presuming we are talking maybe £20-£30 losses ?
No idea. I don't have a Playstation.
If a smart arse firm of solicitors issued a claim on behalf of millions
of regular Joes, things would get more interesting and the T&Cs would
get pored over by expensive people well versed in the lore of consumer legislation.
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content-
people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading
will be the critical bit.
Assuming Sony's lawyers didn't make any enormous fuckups in the wording
of it, I imagine the contract would be the least important bit. It would
be more about misrepresentation / false advertising, or even fraud, if
Sony have been saying you can "buy" things off them that they knew full
well they had no right to sell.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they >>> have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney
for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
How do you figure? If A loans an item to B and then B sells it to C while misrepresenting that they have good title to it, C does not have a claim against A.
I am presuming we are talking maybe £20-£30 losses ?
No idea. I don't have a Playstation.
More like £20-£30 *per item purchased* I should expect.
On 05/12/2023 12:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content-
people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading
will be the critical bit.
Assuming Sony's lawyers didn't make any enormous fuckups in the wording
of it, I imagine the contract would be the least important bit. It would
be more about misrepresentation / false advertising, or even fraud, if
Sony have been saying you can "buy" things off them that they knew full
well they had no right to sell.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they >>>> have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney
for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
How do you figure? If A loans an item to B and then B sells it to C while
misrepresenting that they have good title to it, C does not have a claim
against A.
We are obviously making different assumptions about what the Sony end
user licence may say.
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 12:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content- >>>>> people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading >>>> will be the critical bit.
Assuming Sony's lawyers didn't make any enormous fuckups in the wording
of it, I imagine the contract would be the least important bit. It would >>> be more about misrepresentation / false advertising, or even fraud, if
Sony have been saying you can "buy" things off them that they knew full
well they had no right to sell.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they >>>>> have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney >>>> for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
How do you figure? If A loans an item to B and then B sells it to C while >>> misrepresenting that they have good title to it, C does not have a claim >>> against A.
We are obviously making different assumptions about what the Sony end
user licence may say.
Are we? What could Sony have possibly put in their end-user licence
to enable consumers to sue Disney?
In short, nothing to see here move along please. If you want to buy something that's yours to own, buy physical product not a revocable
license for digital content. And if you do buy a revocable license,
don't complain should it be revoked in the future. The clue is in the
name.
On 05/12/2023 21:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 12:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content- >>>>>> people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading >>>>> will be the critical bit.
Assuming Sony's lawyers didn't make any enormous fuckups in the wording >>>> of it, I imagine the contract would be the least important bit. It would >>>> be more about misrepresentation / false advertising, or even fraud, if >>>> Sony have been saying you can "buy" things off them that they knew full >>>> well they had no right to sell.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they
have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney >>>>> for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
How do you figure? If A loans an item to B and then B sells it to C while >>>> misrepresenting that they have good title to it, C does not have a claim >>>> against A.
We are obviously making different assumptions about what the Sony end
user licence may say.
Are we? What could Sony have possibly put in their end-user licence
to enable consumers to sue Disney?
You again demonstrate that we see things differently. My assumption is
that Sony will have a cast iron end user licence that absolves them of
blame in the event of items being withdrawn by a third party supplier.
That would mean that the the third party might be the only person an aggrieved end user has left to pursue. You are assuming that Sony would somehow give end users the right to sue the third party.
On 05/12/2023 21:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 12:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content- >>>>>> people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading >>>>> will be the critical bit.
Assuming Sony's lawyers didn't make any enormous fuckups in the wording >>>> of it, I imagine the contract would be the least important bit. It would >>>> be more about misrepresentation / false advertising, or even fraud, if >>>> Sony have been saying you can "buy" things off them that they knew full >>>> well they had no right to sell.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court,
would they have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney >>>>> for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
How do you figure? If A loans an item to B and then B sells it to C while >>>> misrepresenting that they have good title to it, C does not have a claim >>>> against A.
We are obviously making different assumptions about what the Sony end
user licence may say.
Are we? What could Sony have possibly put in their end-user licence
to enable consumers to sue Disney?
You again demonstrate that we see things differently. My assumption is
that Sony will have a cast iron end user licence that absolves them of
blame in the event of items being withdrawn by a third party supplier.
That would mean that the the third party might be the only person an aggrieved end user has left to pursue.
You are assuming that Sony would somehow give end users the right to
sue the third party.
In short, nothing to see here move along please. If you want to buy
something that's yours to own, buy physical product not a revocable
license for digital content. And if you do buy a revocable license,
don't complain should it be revoked in the future. The clue is in the
name.
I am pretty sure that all my Kindle books can be removed in the same
way. That's one of the reasons why I won't pay much for a Kindle book.
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content-
people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they
have a chance ?
I am presuming we are talking maybe £20-£30 losses ?
This isn't the first time Sony have done this. It won't be the last. Similarly, Sony won't be the only company that do something like this.
Regardless of the word "Purchase" or "Buy" or similar on the PlayStation screen, condition 15.5.1 of the PlayStation Store rules is clear: "You
can use a Product in the ways described in the licence, but do not own
the product."
The "Purchase" one makes is for a revocable license to download and
watch the digital content. One is buying a license, not the content itself.
I haven't licensed any Discovery content from Sony, so I don't have
sight of how the transaction will be 'described in the licence' but I'll wager it includes something along the lines of "Sony license this
content from Warner Bros and the revocable license you are buying to
this content is contingent upon the license between Sony and Warner Bros remaining in force. If that license is revoked then your license with
Sony will be revoked too. Should the Sony / Warner Bros license be
revoked, we will give you 30 days notice prior to revoking your license
with Sony. Once the license is revoked, the content will be removed
from your device."
In short, nothing to see here move along please. If you want to buy something that's yours to own, buy physical product not a revocable
license for digital content. And if you do buy a revocable license,
don't complain should it be revoked in the future. The clue is in the
name.
On 06/12/2023 11:43, GB wrote:
In short, nothing to see here move along please. If you want to buy
something that's yours to own, buy physical product not a revocable
license for digital content. And if you do buy a revocable license,
don't complain should it be revoked in the future. The clue is in the
name.
I am pretty sure that all my Kindle books can be removed in the same
way. That's one of the reasons why I won't pay much for a Kindle book.
I seem to remember hearing that someone had lost his copy of 1984 like that.
But anyway, assuming the licence is not irrevocable by Sony (say), then surely if they do revoke it, do they not then need to refund the
purchase price? Could otherwise make a nice little earner.
On 2023-12-06, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content-
people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court, would they >>> have a chance ?
I am presuming we are talking maybe £20-£30 losses ?
This isn't the first time Sony have done this. It won't be the last.
Similarly, Sony won't be the only company that do something like this.
Regardless of the word "Purchase" or "Buy" or similar on the PlayStation
screen, condition 15.5.1 of the PlayStation Store rules is clear: "You
can use a Product in the ways described in the licence, but do not own
the product."
The "Purchase" one makes is for a revocable license to download and
watch the digital content. One is buying a license, not the content itself.
Well, that's simultaneously obvious and also not quite true. Obvious
because what would "buying the content" even mean? You don't receive
anything physical, and you're certainly not buying the copyright in the content.
And not quite true because you're also buying a service, i.e.
access to servers which will allow you to download the content.
I haven't licensed any Discovery content from Sony, so I don't have
sight of how the transaction will be 'described in the licence' but I'll
wager it includes something along the lines of "Sony license this
content from Warner Bros and the revocable license you are buying to
this content is contingent upon the license between Sony and Warner Bros
remaining in force. If that license is revoked then your license with
Sony will be revoked too. Should the Sony / Warner Bros license be
revoked, we will give you 30 days notice prior to revoking your license
with Sony. Once the license is revoked, the content will be removed
from your device."
In short, nothing to see here move along please. If you want to buy
something that's yours to own, buy physical product not a revocable
license for digital content. And if you do buy a revocable license,
don't complain should it be revoked in the future. The clue is in the
name.
lol. It's a bit cheeky saying "the clue is in the name" when the clue literally isn't in the name, because it is extremely unlikely that at
any point in the purchase process does the consumer see anything being
named a "revocable licence". The published T&Cs [1] don't support your argument (indeed they significantly undermine it, particularly 14.2 "Everything you buy from PlayStation Store, you buy from us" and 25.4.1
"If we fail to deliver any Product We will refund the amount you paid
for the Product") so you're just flat-out inventing out of whole cloth
some other, hidden, T&Cs to support it instead.
Furthermore, the "Playstation Video Usage Restrictions" [2] has a term
that is specifically on point:
* In certain circumstances, a video may have to be removed from
PlayStation Video. In these circumstances, videos that you have
purchased may become unavailable to download and/or stream. This
will not affect purchased or rented videos that you have already
downloaded. As a result, wherever possible, you should download
purchased and rented videos immediately after purchase to all
download compatible devices on which you would like to have a copy.
So if it is true that Sony is going to reach into peoples' Playstations
in their homes and delete (or make unusable) the content that they have already downloaded (as opposed to simply remove the facility to download
it in future) then they are certainly in breach of their own terms.
But let's suppose there do exist some other terms along the lines you suggest. They wouldn't be definitive of the matter - the question would
be whether the courts would uphold those terms. If our imagined terms
allowed Sony, for example, to revoke (without refund) a "purchase"
a day after it was made, do you really think the courts would allow
that? A week? A month? Assuming such terms would be allowed *at all*,
there clearly would be a cut-off line at some point.
Finally, both you and others have suggested that the cure for these
ills is physical media, that cannot be snatched back by the copyright
holder. While it is obviously true that the actual physical media
cannot be reclaimed, it is entirely possible that the ability to play
the media could be. This media is encrypted, and consumers are not
allowed to decrypt it. An awful lot of equipment these days requires
an Internet connection, so it is entirely possible for the equipment manufacturer to reach into peoples' homes and remove their ability to
play specific phsyical media too.
[1] https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/psn-terms-of-service/
[2] https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/playstation-video-usage-restrictions/
On 2023-12-06, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 21:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 12:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 05/12/2023 07:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/04/playstation-removing-digital-content- >>>>>>> people-already-paid-19921297
Presumably the bunfight would start over the word "sell"/"sold".
The terms of the contract almost everybody clicks past without reading >>>>>> will be the critical bit.
Assuming Sony's lawyers didn't make any enormous fuckups in the wording >>>>> of it, I imagine the contract would be the least important bit. It would >>>>> be more about misrepresentation / false advertising, or even fraud, if >>>>> Sony have been saying you can "buy" things off them that they knew full >>>>> well they had no right to sell.
If a regular joe wanted to sue Sony in the small claims court,
would they have a chance ?
From reading the article, it might be they would have to sue Disney >>>>>> for withdrawing their licence to Sony to use the Discovery
programmes.
How do you figure? If A loans an item to B and then B sells it to C while >>>>> misrepresenting that they have good title to it, C does not have a claim >>>>> against A.
We are obviously making different assumptions about what the Sony end
user licence may say.
Are we? What could Sony have possibly put in their end-user licence
to enable consumers to sue Disney?
You again demonstrate that we see things differently. My assumption is
that Sony will have a cast iron end user licence that absolves them of
blame in the event of items being withdrawn by a third party supplier.
I think that such disclaimers would be unlikely to be effective.
That would mean that the the third party might be the only person an
aggrieved end user has left to pursue.
But what is your theory of liability as to how that might be possible?
What cause of action could the end user have against the third party?
You are assuming that Sony would somehow give end users the right to
sue the third party.
No, that is what *you* have been assuming, and I have been asking you
why you are assuming that since it seems highly unlikely to be true.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnun0r2c.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, that is what *you* have been assuming, and I have been asking you
why you are assuming that since it seems highly unlikely to be true.
But how is this essentially any different to the agreement which
viewers presumably sign up to, with TV providers such as Sky ? Who
it seems are ditching various channels all the time ?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnun14qa.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-06, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The "Purchase" one makes is for a revocable license to download and
watch the digital content. One is buying a license, not the content
itself.
Well, that's simultaneously obvious and also not quite true. Obvious
because what would "buying the content" even mean? You don't receive
anything physical, and you're certainly not buying the copyright in the
content.
Indeed. But mightn't that be the very point that Simon Parker is making ?
That while many people might wrongly assume they're somehow "buying
the content", a moment's thought would show them, that that, simply
isn't the case.
And not quite true because you're also buying a service, i.e.
access to servers which will allow you to download the content.
But it's difficult to see how the supplier could *both* deliberately
deny users access to the servers while at the same time continuing
to licence them the content.
When under such circumstances the licence would be rendered valueless
Whereas its quite concievable that, as here, users could retain access
to the server while losing their ability to access to at least
certain content.
Finally, both you and others have suggested that the cure for these
ills is physical media, that cannot be snatched back by the copyright
holder. While it is obviously true that the actual physical media
cannot be reclaimed, it is entirely possible that the ability to play
the media could be. This media is encrypted, and consumers are not
allowed to decrypt it. An awful lot of equipment these days requires
an Internet connection, so it is entirely possible for the equipment
manufacturer to reach into peoples' homes and remove their ability to
play specific phsyical media too.
While its true that "an awful lot of equipment these days requires an internet connection", surely "the cure for these ills" is to buy
actual physical media to be used on equipment that "doesn't" require
an internet connection ?
Similarly if the physical media are read-only, and the equipment
firmware is read-only then if the encryption works at the start then
it should work in perpetuity surely ?
On 2023-12-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnun14qa.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-06, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The "Purchase" one makes is for a revocable license to download and
watch the digital content. One is buying a license, not the content
itself.
Well, that's simultaneously obvious and also not quite true. Obvious
because what would "buying the content" even mean? You don't receive
anything physical, and you're certainly not buying the copyright in the
content.
Indeed. But mightn't that be the very point that Simon Parker is making ?
That while many people might wrongly assume they're somehow "buying
the content", a moment's thought would show them, that that, simply
isn't the case.
That's why I said it was obvious. But you're missing my point, which
is that the important word is "buying", not "content". The consumer
certainly thinks they are buying *something*, not least because that
is precisely what they are told they are doing. And buying something
is generally permanent.
And not quite true because you're also buying a service, i.e.
access to servers which will allow you to download the content.
But it's difficult to see how the supplier could *both* deliberately
deny users access to the servers while at the same time continuing
to licence them the content.
When under such circumstances the licence would be rendered valueless
Whereas its quite concievable that, as here, users could retain access
to the server while losing their ability to access to at least
certain content.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
My point is that there are two important parts to what is being bought,
and they are independent of each other.
Finally, both you and others have suggested that the cure for these
ills is physical media, that cannot be snatched back by the copyright
holder. While it is obviously true that the actual physical media
cannot be reclaimed, it is entirely possible that the ability to play
the media could be. This media is encrypted, and consumers are not
allowed to decrypt it. An awful lot of equipment these days requires
an Internet connection, so it is entirely possible for the equipment
manufacturer to reach into peoples' homes and remove their ability to
play specific phsyical media too.
While its true that "an awful lot of equipment these days requires an
internet connection", surely "the cure for these ills" is to buy
actual physical media to be used on equipment that "doesn't" require
an internet connection ?
Similarly if the physical media are read-only, and the equipment
firmware is read-only then if the encryption works at the start then
it should work in perpetuity surely ?
You're assuming the device doesn't contain a clock. But yes, I'm not
saying that it is impossible to arrange things such that you can play
the media indefinitely, I'm saying that it isn't necessarily as simple
as "buy physical media, job done".
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnun4fhi.1jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnun14qa.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-06, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The "Purchase" one makes is for a revocable license to download and
watch the digital content. One is buying a license, not the content >>>>> itself.
Well, that's simultaneously obvious and also not quite true. Obvious
because what would "buying the content" even mean? You don't receive
anything physical, and you're certainly not buying the copyright in the >>>> content.
Indeed. But mightn't that be the very point that Simon Parker is making ? >>>
That while many people might wrongly assume they're somehow "buying
the content", a moment's thought would show them, that that, simply
isn't the case.
That's why I said it was obvious. But you're missing my point, which
is that the important word is "buying", not "content". The consumer
certainly thinks they are buying *something*, not least because that
is precisely what they are told they are doing. And buying something
is generally permanent.
People are buying an "experience". And memories of the same.
On 2023-12-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnun4fhi.1jr.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-07, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnun14qa.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2023-12-06, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The "Purchase" one makes is for a revocable license to download and >>>>>> watch the digital content. One is buying a license, not the content >>>>>> itself.
Well, that's simultaneously obvious and also not quite true. Obvious >>>>> because what would "buying the content" even mean? You don't receive >>>>> anything physical, and you're certainly not buying the copyright in the >>>>> content.
Indeed. But mightn't that be the very point that Simon Parker is making ? >>>>
That while many people might wrongly assume they're somehow "buying
the content", a moment's thought would show them, that that, simply
isn't the case.
That's why I said it was obvious. But you're missing my point, which
is that the important word is "buying", not "content". The consumer
certainly thinks they are buying *something*, not least because that
is precisely what they are told they are doing. And buying something
is generally permanent.
People are buying an "experience". And memories of the same.
No. That would be "renting". We're talking about "buying".
You can rent videos online, and it generally works perfectly well,
and involves being able to watch a video as many times as you like
in a short period such as 48 hours. The whole and entire difference
between renting and buying is that renting is limited by time, and
buying is not supposed to be.
If the online services were honest and said "buying is actually
renting, for an unspecified period of time from 48 hours upwards",
they might find their sales would be severely limited. Contracts
are supposed to involve a "meeting of minds", not the parties having completely different ideas as to what they're agreeing to.
Contracts are supposed to involve a "meeting of minds", not the parties having completely different ideas as to what they're agreeing to.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:34:04 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,387 |