There is. That’s what I’m telling you. The agreement between the customer and Sony stipulates that the license can be revoked by the license holder at any time and in that case their purchases will not be reimbursed. That language is there specifically to protect them.
But either way you’re failing to take the main point into account which is that WB is not facing backlash for this, but Sony is. Both of them should face this backlash together.
“SONY grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license to use the SOFTWARE solely in connection with your compatible device (including, but not limited to, SONY’s products which the SOFTWARE is embedded in or bundled with) (“DEVICE”) solely in accordance with this EULA and the usage instructions as may be made available to you by SONY or the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS. SONY and the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS expressly reserve all rights, title and interest (including, but not limited to, all intellectual property rights) in and to the SOFTWARE that this EULA does not specifically grant to you.”
The license is revoked and is not transferable. Believe me when I say that none of the companies that have had this issue previously have reimbursed their customers in any countries that I can find due to riders like this.
This is an article from the last time this happened with Sony.
TL;DR summary: WB had a contract with Sony, both of which have expensive legal teams and knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, so Sony knowingly chose the cheaper option (a shorter lock-in of the right to make that content available).
Sony had contracts (implied and possibly with an agreement, part or all of which might not even be valid in various legal jurisdictions due to Consumer Protection Legislation) between legally-well-armed Sony and zero-legal-knowledge retail customers which, at minimum was portrayed by Sony in so unclear terms (at worse, purposefully to deceive) that said zero-legal-knowledge retail customers thought they were buying something when contractually it was a rental.
How exactly would WB - who negotiated with a legal expert counterparty who knew exactly what they were doing - to blame rather than Sony - who took advantage of the legal naivity of retail customers and quite possibly is leveraging the high costs of legal action against them so as not to have to refund said customers?
The legally expert and very well funded counterparty - Sony - taking advantage of a non-expert and much less well funded counterparty - retail customers - seems a vastly most likely place for shennennigans than the one between two well funded companies with their own legal experts, Sony and WB.
Sony chose to sign a contract with WB where it did not lock-in WB to certain responsabilities for a large time period - say 20 years - and instead chose a shorter time period (which both Business 101 and Asset Pricing Theory indicate as a cheaper option - locking-in certain rights contractually tends to cost more the longer the lock-in period) and per what you say, covered its liability on the client side with clausules in the user licence agreement that essentially meant they could take away any content their customer purchased.
Even putting aside the legality of those clauses and of the EULA itself (if* it was presented to the client after the client paid, it’s legally deemed is void and null per the legislation in most of the World because it’s considered an attempt at changing the terms of a contract after it has been closed), I don’t see which WB is to blame for Sony having chosen a contract length in their agreement with WB that did not guarantee that Sony’s own clients would not be removed access to the digital media they had been led to believe they bought.
It seems to me that WB had a contractual arrangement with Sony (NOT with Sony’s client’s) with which Sony agreeded (and, having lots of expensive lawyers, it can hardly be claimed that Sony did not fully understood the implications of that contract) and they fullfilled their end of the contract, whilsy Sony on the other hand had a contractual relation with retail customers (which are not expected to be anywhere as good in understanding the ins and outs of that contract as Sony’s Lawyers) and which led many if not most of the retail clients to believe they had purchased something which was not in fact sold and if the EULA was only presented to said retail clients after they paid, it wasn’t even backed by a valid contract.
It seems to me that it was Sony that deceived their clients and (if having done so purposefully, it might amount to Fraud, something a Court Of Law would have to rule on), possibly using clauses which are invalid when used with retail clients or not making it sufficiently clear to said retail clients that the nature of the transaction was not a sale but a rental for an indetermined period (both of these depending very much on the legislation of country that retail client is based) and possibly using means that are not even a valid contract in most jurisdiction (i.e. an EULA which is presented post-payment).
In summary, the WB-Sony contract was between two sets of legal experts of big companies, hence both knew perfectly well what they were getting themselves into, whilst the Sony-Retail_Customer contract was between one set of legal experts and individuals most of which with no legal expertise at all and no access to cheap enough legal expertise to analyse all such contract, and which further, had clauses going against several consumer protection laws in several countrues and possibly (if they did it by that order, which I don’t really know) using an EULA presented to the customer after the sale, something which is null and void in contract terms in most of the World because it’s an unilateral attempt at forcing a change in contract terms after the implied contract of the sale has been closed.
How exactly does it make sense to conclude that its WB - the guys that entered into a clear contract with a legally well advised counterparty - who are to blame, rather than Sony who seem to at the very least misportrayed the nature of the sale they were making to retail costumers (who are not legal experts) possibly using means which aren’t even valid under contract law or due to customer protections?
I mean, I can see how you can claim that Sony’s actions were within their contractual terms with the Retail Customers (especially in the Fuck-You-Pleb US with its nearly non-existent consumer protections) so maybe it is all legal, but blaming WB who had a contractual relationship with Sony, who most definitelly have the lawyers to make sure that contract was exactly as they wanted to is ridiculous - Sony absolutelly had the power to pay more and get a contract with WB which, say, would guaranteed that media sold to consumers by Sony would remain available forever and only new sales would stop at the end of a certain period if WB did not renew the contract, they just chose not to pay more and rely on the expectation that they could screw their own retail customers who would be de facto unable to be compensated because of the cost of pursuing a legal case against Sony to get that compensated.
Did you take into account that WB just merged discovery with HBO which means those shows will more than likely be on the HBO streaming platform which is why WB is not renewing Sony’s licensing agreement?
Those terms (EULA) are included at least twice. The first time when you set up a Sony system such as a PlayStation, and again when you download a streaming app, and again once you decide to purchase something. So there is no “it only showed up after a consumer paid” excuse here. Meaning When these consumers downloaded the discover app they agreed to WB’s TOS or EULA.
You don’t have any proof that they chose a legal contract that was cheaper or that the specified time limit was Sony’s rather than WB’s. You make a lot of assumptions here.
Whatever is happenning on the WB side is irrelevant as their contractual obligations to Sony passed to the merged company.
Sony made a business were they leased long term to retail costumers something they themselves were renting on short term renewable contracts and, worse, misportrayed it to so said retail customers would confuse a lease with a sale. It’s not the fault of those renting stuff to Sony who chose not to renew the rental to Sony, that the business and contractual structure Sony put in place resulted in the consequences of a non-renewal of the rental being passed fully to the retail customers of Sony who, worse, were not in any way, form or shape, compensate for it by Sony.
Sony put in place this commercial structure, knew the risks and structured it all ol that it passed them fully to retail customers without making those risks clear to said retail customers, quite the contrary. Sony profited before the risks materialised and passed on the consequences to their retail customers fully and without compensation when they did materialise.
It’s not the blame of the guys upstream who were loaning something to Sony on short term contracts that Sony chose to lease that something long term to retail customers in a way that would cause many to confuse it with a sale and that at the end of the loan contract between those guys and Sony, the latter fully passed the consequences of it, without compensation, to their retail customers.
At best, if you want to find blame beyond Sony, look at the politicians that made the Laws that allow Sony to get away with doing what would otherwise be deemed fraud and in their otherwise-fraudulent business model made sure the predictable negative consequences of the end of any rental agreements upstream, to Sony, would fall entirelly on the shoulders of retail customers.
There is. That’s what I’m telling you. The agreement between the customer and Sony stipulates that the license can be revoked by the license holder at any time and in that case their purchases will not be reimbursed. That language is there specifically to protect them.
But either way you’re failing to take the main point into account which is that WB is not facing backlash for this, but Sony is. Both of them should face this backlash together.
“SONY grants you a limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license to use the SOFTWARE solely in connection with your compatible device (including, but not limited to, SONY’s products which the SOFTWARE is embedded in or bundled with) (“DEVICE”) solely in accordance with this EULA and the usage instructions as may be made available to you by SONY or the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS. SONY and the THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS expressly reserve all rights, title and interest (including, but not limited to, all intellectual property rights) in and to the SOFTWARE that this EULA does not specifically grant to you.”
The license is revoked and is not transferable. Believe me when I say that none of the companies that have had this issue previously have reimbursed their customers in any countries that I can find due to riders like this.
This is an article from the last time this happened with Sony.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/studio-canal-movies-purchased-on-playstation-store-get-deleted-aug-31#:~:text=This means that anyone who,for the content being removed.
TL;DR summary: WB had a contract with Sony, both of which have expensive legal teams and knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, so Sony knowingly chose the cheaper option (a shorter lock-in of the right to make that content available). Sony had contracts (implied and possibly with an agreement, part or all of which might not even be valid in various legal jurisdictions due to Consumer Protection Legislation) between legally-well-armed Sony and zero-legal-knowledge retail customers which, at minimum was portrayed by Sony in so unclear terms (at worse, purposefully to deceive) that said zero-legal-knowledge retail customers thought they were buying something when contractually it was a rental. How exactly would WB - who negotiated with a legal expert counterparty who knew exactly what they were doing - to blame rather than Sony - who took advantage of the legal naivity of retail customers and quite possibly is leveraging the high costs of legal action against them so as not to have to refund said customers? The legally expert and very well funded counterparty - Sony - taking advantage of a non-expert and much less well funded counterparty - retail customers - seems a vastly most likely place for shennennigans than the one between two well funded companies with their own legal experts, Sony and WB.
Sony chose to sign a contract with WB where it did not lock-in WB to certain responsabilities for a large time period - say 20 years - and instead chose a shorter time period (which both Business 101 and Asset Pricing Theory indicate as a cheaper option - locking-in certain rights contractually tends to cost more the longer the lock-in period) and per what you say, covered its liability on the client side with clausules in the user licence agreement that essentially meant they could take away any content their customer purchased.
Even putting aside the legality of those clauses and of the EULA itself (if* it was presented to the client after the client paid, it’s legally deemed is void and null per the legislation in most of the World because it’s considered an attempt at changing the terms of a contract after it has been closed), I don’t see which WB is to blame for Sony having chosen a contract length in their agreement with WB that did not guarantee that Sony’s own clients would not be removed access to the digital media they had been led to believe they bought.
It seems to me that WB had a contractual arrangement with Sony (NOT with Sony’s client’s) with which Sony agreeded (and, having lots of expensive lawyers, it can hardly be claimed that Sony did not fully understood the implications of that contract) and they fullfilled their end of the contract, whilsy Sony on the other hand had a contractual relation with retail customers (which are not expected to be anywhere as good in understanding the ins and outs of that contract as Sony’s Lawyers) and which led many if not most of the retail clients to believe they had purchased something which was not in fact sold and if the EULA was only presented to said retail clients after they paid, it wasn’t even backed by a valid contract.
It seems to me that it was Sony that deceived their clients and (if having done so purposefully, it might amount to Fraud, something a Court Of Law would have to rule on), possibly using clauses which are invalid when used with retail clients or not making it sufficiently clear to said retail clients that the nature of the transaction was not a sale but a rental for an indetermined period (both of these depending very much on the legislation of country that retail client is based) and possibly using means that are not even a valid contract in most jurisdiction (i.e. an EULA which is presented post-payment).
In summary, the WB-Sony contract was between two sets of legal experts of big companies, hence both knew perfectly well what they were getting themselves into, whilst the Sony-Retail_Customer contract was between one set of legal experts and individuals most of which with no legal expertise at all and no access to cheap enough legal expertise to analyse all such contract, and which further, had clauses going against several consumer protection laws in several countrues and possibly (if they did it by that order, which I don’t really know) using an EULA presented to the customer after the sale, something which is null and void in contract terms in most of the World because it’s an unilateral attempt at forcing a change in contract terms after the implied contract of the sale has been closed.
How exactly does it make sense to conclude that its WB - the guys that entered into a clear contract with a legally well advised counterparty - who are to blame, rather than Sony who seem to at the very least misportrayed the nature of the sale they were making to retail costumers (who are not legal experts) possibly using means which aren’t even valid under contract law or due to customer protections?
I mean, I can see how you can claim that Sony’s actions were within their contractual terms with the Retail Customers (especially in the Fuck-You-Pleb US with its nearly non-existent consumer protections) so maybe it is all legal, but blaming WB who had a contractual relationship with Sony, who most definitelly have the lawyers to make sure that contract was exactly as they wanted to is ridiculous - Sony absolutelly had the power to pay more and get a contract with WB which, say, would guaranteed that media sold to consumers by Sony would remain available forever and only new sales would stop at the end of a certain period if WB did not renew the contract, they just chose not to pay more and rely on the expectation that they could screw their own retail customers who would be de facto unable to be compensated because of the cost of pursuing a legal case against Sony to get that compensated.
Did you take into account that WB just merged discovery with HBO which means those shows will more than likely be on the HBO streaming platform which is why WB is not renewing Sony’s licensing agreement?
Those terms (EULA) are included at least twice. The first time when you set up a Sony system such as a PlayStation, and again when you download a streaming app, and again once you decide to purchase something. So there is no “it only showed up after a consumer paid” excuse here. Meaning When these consumers downloaded the discover app they agreed to WB’s TOS or EULA.
You don’t have any proof that they chose a legal contract that was cheaper or that the specified time limit was Sony’s rather than WB’s. You make a lot of assumptions here.
https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/legal/psn-terms-of-service/
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/
https://www.ign.com/articles/hbo-maxs-cut-content-to-shift-to-other-streaming-services-as-warner-bros-discovery-prepares-relaunch
https://nofilmschool.com/warner-bros-deleting-purchased-digital-content
Disney did this same thing before they launched Disney+. Paramount and other license holders have done the same.
Whatever is happenning on the WB side is irrelevant as their contractual obligations to Sony passed to the merged company.
Sony made a business were they leased long term to retail costumers something they themselves were renting on short term renewable contracts and, worse, misportrayed it to so said retail customers would confuse a lease with a sale. It’s not the fault of those renting stuff to Sony who chose not to renew the rental to Sony, that the business and contractual structure Sony put in place resulted in the consequences of a non-renewal of the rental being passed fully to the retail customers of Sony who, worse, were not in any way, form or shape, compensate for it by Sony.
Sony put in place this commercial structure, knew the risks and structured it all ol that it passed them fully to retail customers without making those risks clear to said retail customers, quite the contrary. Sony profited before the risks materialised and passed on the consequences to their retail customers fully and without compensation when they did materialise.
It’s not the blame of the guys upstream who were loaning something to Sony on short term contracts that Sony chose to lease that something long term to retail customers in a way that would cause many to confuse it with a sale and that at the end of the loan contract between those guys and Sony, the latter fully passed the consequences of it, without compensation, to their retail customers.
At best, if you want to find blame beyond Sony, look at the politicians that made the Laws that allow Sony to get away with doing what would otherwise be deemed fraud and in their otherwise-fraudulent business model made sure the predictable negative consequences of the end of any rental agreements upstream, to Sony, would fall entirelly on the shoulders of retail customers.