PlayStation is erasing 1,318 seasons of Discovery shows from customer libraries | The change comes as Warner Bros. tries to add subscribers to Max, Discovery+ apps.::The change comes as Warner Bros. tries to add subscribers to Max, Discovery+ apps.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 year ago

    PlayStation is erasing 1,318 seasons of Discovery shows from customer libraries | The change comes as Warner Bros. tries to add subscribers to Max, Discovery+

    2 sentences, 5 names of different entities

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      Two companies though, one with multiple business units under various names. Warner Bros. Discovery owns Warner Bros., HBO Max and Discovery.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 year ago

    Damn. Maybe we shouldn’t have downloaded cars. It’s only fair that the capitalist collective should be able to delete our vhs and DVDs etc in return right?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    Wow, I didn’t know I was that far behind on Star Trek: discovery. And Lower Decks only got 4 seasons?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    Never buying a TV show or movie I can’t download ever again. Never have, but still, never again.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    721 year ago

    If we break into people’s homes and destroy their property, maybe they’ll have to give us money to replace what was lost?

    Why has no one come up with this business strategy before.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Planned obsolescence is the preferred method (and doesn’t require breaking and entering).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Pay us protection or we’ll smash your business.

      Wait a minute, I’ve heard this before.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    “If you had just read the fine print, you would have realized that you’re not actually owning and they could take it away at their own discretion.” - an associate of mine

    So you’re saying we shouldn’t consume content?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    751 year ago

    Fuck this shit.

    If buying isn’t owning. Piracy isn’t stealing.

    This is so anti consumer, I’m surprised the EU hasn’t stepped in to stop it yet

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    261 year ago

    Im still trying to understand why this is legal. Is there more to the story that I’m missing?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      Technically, when you buy a show or a movie you’re buying a license to watch it. That license can be revoked at any time. This is true for physical and digital copies, it’s just impossible for companies to revoke the license when you have a physical copy.

      • Justin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 year ago

        Not the same in the EU as far as I know. Digital goods have to uphold a certain standard.

        • TheRealKuni
          link
          fedilink
          English
          291 year ago

          Unfortunately we don’t all live in civilized places like the EU. Some of us live in “shithole countries,” like the United States.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          This might only affect US customers as these studios typically create separate licensing deals in each country. An example is when the new Star Trek shows began airing, everywhere in the world got to watch it on Netflix while US customers had to subscribe to CBS All Access (now Paramount+).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Now how is THIS legal? Wtf? So, basically you buy a car, pay it all of and the dealership can just come to your house and take it? This is basically the same. I paid for something to own. It should be mine forever.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          I don’t know about cars, but John Deere tractors can be remotely disabled by the company.

          They were “bragging” about this in the early days of the Ukraine war, saying that they were locking down tractors that Russians were trying to take out of Ukraine. But, the fact they can do that means that if they don’t like some random farmer in Iowa, they can also remotely disable his tractor too.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            That’s actually very dangerous. They can fuck with our food supplies whenever they want to.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Yeah, but they have a good thing going, and wouldn’t want to risk it by doing something that will get laws changed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            I’m kinda surprised that there was a single Ukrainian tractor that wasn’t rooted and still under the control of John Deere. Trying to restrict a Slav’s right to repair is about as impossible as trying to restrict an Italian’s right to complain about food.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Who knows how honest John Deere were being in their claims about the tractors. But, they did claim that they were able to disable the tractors remotely, as if that were a feature.

              But, it’s true, I’ve heard that when American farmers want to repair their own John Deere tractors, they tend to use Ukrainian firmware.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I’m pretty sure Apple has something similar. You don’t technically own the device because the software it’s packaged with doesn’t belong to you.

            This means they could brick your phone and you have no right to complain.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You know the first of those links is right wing propaganda, right? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/infrastructure-bill-track-drivers/

            While there is no mention of a “kill switch” that could be accessible by law enforcement in the bill text, the legislation does not define exactly how the technology would limit impaired driving. Rather, the contents of the bill simply define the equipment to be a system that can:

            Passively monitor the performance of a driver to accurately identify whether they are impaired.

            Prevent or limit operation if impairment is detected.

            “Passively” detect whether the BAC of a driver is equal to or higher than the legal limit. In such cases, the system could “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        And people said NFTs were stupid. I mean, they are, but people have been paying for essentially the same thing for years now.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      441 year ago

      If this isn’t theft, then the inverse isn’t either. Raise your flags, it’s time once again to sail the high seas

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          It never was.

          You’re copying, not stealing. When you steal something, it is gone from the person you took it from. When you copy something, both of you have it.

          “Piracy” being stealing is exactly the same as “stealing” someone’s ideas. It’s a lame excuse so people richer than us can be even richer.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    If you purchased any Discovery shows from the PlayStation Store, Sony has some bad news for you to discover.

    The company recently announced that all Discovery content purchased on the PlayStation Store will be erased before 2024.

    But there were users who had already purchased stuff from the PlayStation Store and, believe it or not, expect to be able to watch it when they want, since they paid money to buy (rather than rent) it.

    Shows getting axed from user libraries include Wives With Knives, An Idiot Abroad, Evil Twins, and Body Bizarre.

    But there are also plenty of more well-known titles on the list of purchased content being revoked, including American Chopper, Cake Boss, MythBusters, Shark Week, and Say Yes to the Dress.

    That means there’s a good chance numerous users will be affected by Sony’s announcement.


    The original article contains 332 words, the summary contains 138 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1651 year ago

    So they’re taking shows away from people who have already purchased them and moving the shows to other services in order to try to make potential customers subscribe to more services?

    Fuck those guys, especially for ripping off people who already paid for the content.

    Here we go again. Instead of being forced to subscribe to shitty bundles of cable channels in order to get the channel you do want, we’re being forced to subscribe to multiple shitty services to get the shows we want.

    This industry is a one-trick pony. Literally giving the worst service they can to force people to subscribe to more services.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      ripping off people who already paid for the content.

      They didn’t pay for the shows. They paid for access to the shows. That’s all anyone gets these days.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        They didn’t pay for the shows. They paid for access to the shows.

        And, if they had made that completely clear, there would be less of an issue. If the “Buy” button was replaced with “Rent, Long Term” then maybe people would be less annoyed that their long-term rentals were now being forcibly returned. But, labelling the button “Buy” makes them more money.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          “long term” is still indefinite and therefore unconscionable. “For at least 10 views” or “For at least 5 years” would work.

          Another option would be Sony not entering unconscionable contracts with WB. They can because they’re gigantic and be laughed out of court if they tried to argue that their legal department didn’t spot the issue but their contract should have said that anythnig that gets licensed indeed gets licensed in perpetuity: That is, WB could say “don’t sell any new licenses any more”, but they couldn’t say “all licenses are now invalid, how you fulfil your contracts with your customers maybe buy boxsets”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        Ok, a technicality that still leaves the access removed. Regardless of whether they paid for it or the access to it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      161 year ago

      Welp time to start mass-buying dvd box sets and ripping the files, screw not owning shit you paid for

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 year ago

        Don’t even waste your time and just go directly to the high seas. You’ll get all the same quality content several orders of magnitude faster.

        • Transporter Room 3
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I have every season of Stargate SG-1 on DVD, and unfortunately one disc already has an unplayable scene due to scratches, but for the most part it’s in-tact.

          No streaming service has the HD wide-screen versions available for streaming, and their subtitles are very… Summarizing. In sections.

          I have a laptop with a USB connected dvd player, and I’ve been slowly converting the discs to my digital library, but holy shit is this a slow process.

          I literally could have been done with every season and special feature of all three shows and the movies in the time it took me to rip the first season alone.

          Buuuuut I don’t currently have a Very Pontoony Nautical vessel soooooo… I can’t go sailing right now.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Are you ripping and encoding them with Handbrake? You can at least speed it up a bit by just ripping them with MakeMKV and then leaving them in the full quality format to skip the long encode. This will take up more HDD space but save a ton of time comparably.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          Personally I don’t mind paying for content I legit get to keep, so long as the cost is reasonable. Yeah, overpriced old movies or stuff you can’t find, sure. Hoist the flag, my friend.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      Fuck those guys, especially for ripping off people who already paid for the content.

      If either side cared about good customer service, they’d find a compromise. Either Sony would pay for the purchases and make it available under the new home at whatever the new sales-channel is called. Or, Warner Bros. Discovery would switch the licenses and make it available themselves.

      Of the two options, Warner Bros. Discovery doing that would make the most sense. For them, it would have zero cost. They’d lose out on the potential to re-sell the same content to people twice, but they’d keep potential future customers happy by doing that. Especially true for people who had bought a few seasons of a show but hadn’t finished it. They’d be incentivized to purchase future seasons using the new store.

      The fact that neither side is willing to make these concessions shows just how little they care about their customers. They deserve all the copyright infringement they’re about to see.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Kind of.

      You don’t have yearly contracts and it’s a lot easier to start and stop a particular service at any time.

      It’s weird to see this take when I remember streaming started out that this was what was heralded. You could pick and choose what streaming services you wanted and you could change them easily. You didn’t have to buy the sport package or pay the built in royalties of sports teams if you didn’t watch sports.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        For now. However, I’m going to pick at something you mentioned about switching when you want - sure, but most services offer a discount for a year’s subscription. I don’t think it’s an insignificant amount of people that might buy in on that. Switching becomes irrelevant when the service already has your money.

        Also, services are separating popular shows, unbundling for lack of a better word, to other platforms to force people to subscribe to more services. Effectively that’s making you pay for shows you don’t want (like your sports reference) to get the shows you do.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        I haven’t paid for a movie, show, or song since… like 2005.

        Games get my money, but I usually wait a couple years to make sure they’re good lawl

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s probably not about getting the legitimate version rather about supporting the creators. Don’t scrounge a penny for work that you love. Eddit: better support a creator throu a donation instead of buying the song on Itunes or something.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Pay for a legitimate copy and also download a DRM-free one. That way you support the creator but don’t have to worry about it being stolen from you.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        That’s it. I am heading to the goodwill and picking up some media. And I gotta find our old discs too.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Agreed. Streaming services always seemed like gilded cages to me. You can only see what they allow you to see - piracy or old-school Netflix DVD delivery gives you all the options. The promise of being able to stream any content at any time, with the producers and people involved being able to get compensated fairly and justly, just isn’t reality with these ghouls running the show.

      The model (in the current form, of artificially restricted licensing) seems like less a way to curate a media catalog, but more like a way to curate the subscribers and culture.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        piracy or old-school Netflix DVD delivery gives you all the options.

        Netflix cancelled their DVD service in September. In an entirely unrelated move, I have recently cancelled my Netflix service…