We’re all familiar with all the ways this sucks, of course, so I’ll discuss something else:
The fact that someone like Sony can’t negotiate a contract that provides perpetual re-download rights to customers is embarrassing. I doubt that would have cost any money. No movie studio would have objected to the idea that the original buyer gets to keep the non-transferable media forever.
I guess they just didn’t think of it? What law school did these Sony lawyers go to, anyway?
Does Sony just not even care about their brand image at all? This was entirely avoidable.
Of course they could have negotiated that. They didn’t just forget. They choose to not pay whatever additional cost Studio Canal would have wanted for a perpetual license.
Knowing that, they turned around and deceived people into buying something by false representation. Sony are crooks and have been crooks for a long time.
I agree with you, but my main speculation is that a perpetual license would not have actually cost extra. It is at least possible that this happened via incompetence rather than malice, especially at a big corporation like Sony.
These vague licensing complications seem to be unnecessary "own goals" the industry keep scoring on itself over and over.
Rights to distribute via digital download are separate from rights to stream, which are separate from rights to broadcast, which are separate from DVD rights, and then multiply that by every rights holder and "region" out there. Good grief! Why do they deliberately make it so complicated?
The fact that someone like Sony can’t negotiate a contract that provides perpetual re-download rights to customers is embarrassing. I doubt that would have cost any money. No movie studio would have objected to the idea that the original buyer gets to keep the non-transferable media forever.
I guess they just didn’t think of it? What law school did these Sony lawyers go to, anyway?
Does Sony just not even care about their brand image at all? This was entirely avoidable.