Press Release Sony to remove users legally purchased movies on PlayStation store (1 Viewer)

[Todd Erwin]

I finally had a chance to read the article. Essentially, Sony is closing the PlayStation movie store in both Germany and Austria, and while most movies that have been previously purchased will still be available to stream, Sony was unable to secure a continued license with Studio Canal, so therefore any purchases of titles from that studio will no longer be available to view through the PlayStation store on PlayStation consoles effective August 31, 2022, and that no refunds will be made at this time to customers.

The fact that Sony never bothered to have their PlayStation movie store added to Movies Anywhere (even though Studio Canal is not a member, either) would have made me leery to purchase from there anyway. Sony has had a bad reputation with keeping and maintaining their streaming services for any period of time (ULTRA and Crackle are fine examples, not to mention their music services and the oddly named PlayStation VUE IPTV service), and the fact that their latest, Bravia Core, is also NOT a member of Movies Anywhere would keep me away from purchasing any movies on that service, even if they were "free" had I purchased a Sony TV last year instead of LG.

Redbox has been on the verge of collapsing, despite their second attempt at launching a streaming service that offers free TV channels (similar to Pluto and XUMO) in addition to on-demand purchases and rentals. They, too, have failed to join Movies Anywhere, placing any purchases made in jeopardy of being lost forever. One would hope that the new owner of Redbox, Chicken Soup for the Soul (who coincidentally acquired Crackle from Sony a few years back), should they decide to allow Redbox to fold, would sell their membership base and customer DRM licenses to an existing competitor. Target did just that when they shut down Target Ticket in 2015, except they moved their customers to CinemaNow, which promptly and without warning shut their doors just two years later, leaving customers in the lurch with movies they had purchased now lost forever. For that reason, I only purchase or redeem non-MA eligible titles (such as those from MGM, STX, Lionsgate and Paramount) from either Apple or Vudu - these are two companies that likely are not going anywhere anytime soon (Vudu is owned by Fandango, which in turn is owned by Comcast).

The right thing for Sony to have done here would have been to either issue refunds to customers for their "lost" movies or made a deal with Studio Canal to provide codes to redeem those movies again on a competitor service (my feeling is that Studio Canal should make good on those purchases if you provide proof if they really want to make points with customers). But if you read the fine print on any digital movie purchase or code redemption, all the customer is really getting is a license to view that movie an unlimited number of times, but not indefinitely. However, Movies Anywhere seems to have fixed some of the issues that plagued UltraViolet when studio Relativity Media went bankrupt and pulled back their UV rights. So far, that has not happened on Movies Anywhere as far as I can tell. If you redeemed a code or purchased any movies from Laika (Coraline, Missing Link, Kubo) while it still had a distribution deal with Universal, they will still show under your Movies Anywhere account and still have access to them on your Movies Anywhere connected retailer accounts. Ferngully (formerly with Fox) falls under that same category, although new purchases of both Ferngully and Laika movies will be through Shout Factory and not have MA rights.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I finally had a chance to read the article. Essentially, Sony is closing the PlayStation movie store in both Germany and Austria, and while most movies that have been previously purchased will still be available to stream, Sony was unable to secure a continued license with Studio Canal, so therefore any purchases of titles from that studio will no longer be available to view through the PlayStation store on PlayStation consoles effective August 31, 2022, and that no refunds will be made at this time to customers.

The fact that Sony never bothered to have their PlayStation movie store added to Movies Anywhere (even though Studio Canal is not a member, either) would have made me leery to purchase from there anyway. Sony has had a bad reputation with keeping and maintaining their streaming services for any period of time (ULTRA and Crackle are fine examples, not to mention their music services and the oddly named PlayStation VUE IPTV service), and the fact that their latest, Bravia Core, is also NOT a member of Movies Anywhere would keep me away from purchasing any movies on that service, even if they were "free" had I purchased a Sony TV last year instead of LG.

I don't think that Movies Anywhere would have solved this particular issue, as that service is not available in Europe.

 

[Guardyan]

(...) You deserve to lose all your movies for being so gullible in the first place and trusting the studios. When you buy a digital copy, you have bought nothing.

Jeez... really? "You deserve to _____" in general never rings as anything else but rude. It's basically celebrating some else's misfortune.

 

[Guardyan]

If Sony allowed people to download their movies to their computers, that would have been a better way to end this story. "The movie is in your computer and now you care for it," is basically what they'd be saying.

Now, the only thing that must be taken in consideration here is the fact that some stores add that DRM thing to their products and if a store folds, what's the guarantee that even a legally acquired digital media file will still play fine without connecting to some "DRM checker" server?

If we're going for digital, it must be a file format that won't become outdated anytime soon and it must play on any TV without the need to have it connect to a server somewhere to verify that that media is legit.

If the media industry fails to understand this, they will fuel illegal ways that are known by everyone already.

I have nothing against digital although I prefer physical media. I just feel it's a bit more complicated to store digital files.

 

[DaveF]

The problem with digital purchases is that the economics don't make sense over time. Upfront, the sale of a digital copy is more profitable than a physical media sale because there's no overhead with shipping or shelf space. But with physical media, the seller's obligation ends when the customer walks out the door with the product. With digital copies, the seller makes its money upfront and then has to continually invest in its platform and storage to make the purchased content available to the buyer. That's an ongoing cost without any new revenue.

That's why I never pay more than the cost of a movie ticket for a digital copy; I figure that if I watch it once, I've gotten my money out of it, and any subsequent viewings are gravy.

Recurring revenue from future purchases and rentals.

That’s the whole game. It’s also the basis for pretty much every piece of software and electronics worth buying these days.

Cars are going this way.

Whether it works isn’t the model per se but whether the company really has a product people want to keep buying, with low enough support costs, to support the forward-reaching maintenance and upgrade costs

TBD how it works for digital lockers.

Streaming video series have the same challenge: continued increasing costs maintaining user accounts, maintaining distribution of old content, and cost of creating new content.

Which is why new subscriber growth is so important and why Netflix is crushed by the stock market for going stagnant or declining even a small amount.

 

[DaveF]

And I want a fully digital, universal, MoviesAnywhere-esque system for buying movies. I want to buy a disc, add the digital copy to my online library. I want to be able to buy movies online as well in that digital system. I want a single library interface for all movies from all studios. I want zero confusion over where I should redeem a movie code. The current system is far better than it was 10 years ago. But it’s still maddening — user hostile — that I have to remember where my online movies are.

I want to enjoy discs now. I want to be ready for a disc-less future that’s easy to use.

 

[John Dirk]

And I want a fully digital, universal, MoviesAnywhere-esque system for buying movies. I want to buy a disc, add the digital copy to my online library. I want to be able to buy movies online as well in that digital system. I want a single library interface for all movies from all studios. I want zero confusion over where I should redeem a movie code. The current system is far better than it was 10 years ago. But it’s still maddening — user hostile — that I have to remember where my online movies are.

I want to enjoy discs now. I want to be ready for a disc-less future that’s easy to use.

Is it fair to summarize your position as "you want content providers and studios to prioritize customer satisfaction over individual motives and profit?" If so, I'm with you but, sadly, I'm not very hopeful.

 

[Clinton McClure]

This just puts a point on to why I’m firmly against a streaming only business model. I’ll rent the occasional new release for streaming but I never rely on streaming as a platform for movies that I buy. As far as ownership is concerned, I’m in the physical-only camp and will die on this hill.

 

[Sam Posten]

Sure and that’s fair to want that. Just as long as you recognize that you aren’t likely to win out on that. From an economical, environmental, cultural, technological and convenience perspective the odds are against you.

I want physical media to continue too. But it’s now a niche that is only embraced by those of us who demand the very best regardless of all those other factors. We are swimming against the tide.

 

[Sam Posten]

Also I suspect that lossless video quality will happen long before physical makes a comeback

 

[DaveF]

Unclear how streaming wins “environmental” vs discs.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Unclear how streaming wins “environmental” vs discs.

Discs and their packaging are made with plastic, a petroleum biproduct that’s not particularly good for the environment. Discs are often pressed in one place, cases manufactured somewhere else, and inserts are printed in yet another place. They’re transported long distances utilizing fossil fuels. They’re then shipped to a variety of locations, both to distributors for stores and large online retailers, where more fossil fuels are expended getting them to their final destination. The vast majority of disc buyers don’t rewatch their purchases frequently, so they often wind up unwanted and in trash heaps within a few years. Discs that aren’t purchased from retailers get transported to liquidators who redistribute them to other locations, and when those don’t sell, they’re transported yet again to be destroyed, creating more waste.

There’s a fair point to be made that the environmental cost of operating server farms for data storage aren’t being included in assessments of cloud-based storage, but I would argue the difference there is that server farms could switch to more environmentally friendly, renewable energy sources, and I suspect one day they will - at a certain point it’s going to be cheaper to power those things with renewables than coal, if regulation doesn’t force a change sooner. A server farm isn’t inherently environmentally unfriendly, it’s simply that the way we generate most electricity is.

 

[dpippel]

It's not just about energy consumption. Don't neglect to consider the environmental impact of the materials used in computing products AND their manufacture. Silicon wafers, diodes, capacitors, LEDs, etc. all have to be made, shipped, and then disposed of when they reach EOL. The raw materials that make up these devices have to be mined, refined, packaged and shipped. Many of these industries use large amounts of water in their operations in addition to producing toxic byproducts. Finished electronic components themselves can contain a menagerie of toxic materials, like gallium arsenide, that must be dealt with when they're discarded.

It would be interesting to see an in-depth analysis of this web of relationships and how much of a toll it takes on the environment, down to the level of delivering a single streaming film to one individual customer. There is no free ride here.

 

[DaveF]

Discs and their packaging are made with plastic, a petroleum biproduct that’s not particularly good for the environment. Discs are often pressed in one place, cases manufactured somewhere else, and inserts are printed in yet another place. They’re transported long distances utilizing fossil fuels. They’re then shipped to a variety of locations, both to distributors for stores and large online retailers, where more fossil fuels are expended getting them to their final destination. The vast majority of disc buyers don’t rewatch their purchases frequently, so they often wind up unwanted and in trash heaps within a few years. Discs that aren’t purchased from retailers get transported to liquidators who redistribute them to other locations, and when those don’t sell, they’re transported yet again to be destroyed, creating more waste.

There’s a fair point to be made that the environmental cost of operating server farms for data storage aren’t being included in assessments of cloud-based storage, but I would argue the difference there is that server farms could switch to more environmentally friendly, renewable energy sources, and I suspect one day they will - at a certain point it’s going to be cheaper to power those things with renewables than coal, if regulation doesn’t force a change sooner. A server farm isn’t inherently environmentally unfriendly, it’s simply that the way we generate most electricity is.

Data facilities use vast amounts of energy to enable all content to be available all the time to all the people. Not obvious that’s more or less than a disc that sits on a shelf for 40 years in my living room.

I *hope* streaming is better than polycarbonate discs. But I don’t know. It’s a common assertion. I haven’t seen anyone back it with actual data / research.