PSA: Think twice before deleting PSN video downloads
Oh, the rep will happily flip a switch somewhere enabling you to re-download the video in question ... but only once. Make the same mistake twice and you're stuck. In this case, whether you actually "own" what you've paid for is more than a little fuzzy.
Of course, you could take advantage of one of the PS3's nicer features and simply install a larger off-the-shelf hard disk by yourself. And, since Sony's been so kind as to provide a PS3 Backup Utility for migrating your data, those videos will transfer right over ... right? Not so fast. According to the utility's documentation, purchased and rented PSN video store content may not play following the transfer process. In this case, you'd better hope you haven't used that one-off "lifeline" call to customer service yet.
[Via Engadget]
Source – PS3 re-download limits
Source – Sony PS3 Backup Utility
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Shmil (Mr ESC Liberation Front) @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:50PM
This is absolute bullshit on Sony's part. But I'm sure they'll eventually change this. They'd have to, right?
why not the LS2LS7? @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:51PM
It's not Sony's choice. The studios force this on everyone for movie download purchases. Much like they now require movie PPV purchases to expire 24h after you start watching.
I guess you could partially blame Sony Pictures, since they are a studio.
Vol @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:16PM
Complete and utter bull shit.
I thought you were BUYING the movie to keep. This seems like a prolonged rental approach.
paralipsis @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:16AM
It's the the kind of thing that erodes what little trust many people have in DRMed purchases.
Anticrawl @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:51AM
Considering Sony owns over half of the movie industry you'd think they'd be in a place to change this, and if they don't they'd rather have it this way or it was done intentionally.
BigD145 @ Sep 23rd 2008 1:05AM
Sony, Microsoft, various DRM companies, and some others are all in this together. They want you at their beck and call 24/7.
Ordeith @ Sep 23rd 2008 2:15AM
uhm....
TV shows on Live are pay once, watch whenever.
You can watch the show wherever you are signed in.
Delete it, download it again.
and evena tool to transfer the Machine level authorization on XBLA games to other machines.
Sony is WAY behind in this aspect.
Also, it is interesting placing the blame on media companies like it isn't Sony's fault. Sony is a media company, a very big one, and I don't see their published works available in a consumer friendly format.
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Sep 23rd 2008 7:30AM
@why not: "It's not Sony's choice. The studios force this on everyone for movie download purchases."
Guys, you have to learn facts.
Sony itself *is* studio and part of MPAA.
Check that out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Home_Entertainment
So Sony is essentially free to set conditions for their movies as they want. But they didn't.
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Sep 23rd 2008 8:04AM
I sort of assumed the video downloads would be like the rest of PSN (especially compared to how open it is compared to Ninty or MS), but I guess I was wrong. So their service, in essense, is no better than iTunes or Amazon. That's a shame, but oh well.
Also, yes. Sony is a BIIIIIIIG corporation with it's hands in many pots, but do you REALLY think those braches like or communicate with each other? Do you REALLY believe Sony Pictures, who has to report their financials completely seperate from the Playstation division, could give a flying fuck what's going to sell PS3's or how to treat the PS3 consumer? Really? Because let's put it this way.... Sony Pictures wants nothing to do with hunting down individual pirates and wants to go only after bootleggers. Same with Playstation division. And yet Sony Music is a part of the RIAA...
This is one of those things Howard Stringer was promoted to try and do. Remove secrecy between divisions and improve cross sectional cooperation. How Sony used to be three years ago, he's making great stride but you can't change a 50 year old company overnight nor can you expect a Hollywood division to suddenly start thinking like a game company. After all, if that really was possible, Spiderman games would have been a platform exclusive.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Sep 23rd 2008 8:27AM
Ordeith:
It's the movie studios.
It's the movies that have these restrictions. TV shows on Live are not movies, they're TV shows.
The terms for downloads in PSN are about as gracious as on Live, you can actually download your downloads to 5 consoles, with no need to use a website to transfer them around (which MS allows once a year at most). However, the movie downloads are more restricted due to the studios. MS avoided this issue altogether by not offering movies for purchase on Live. Given the response to the restrictions, perhaps MS was smart to do this. It personally doesn't affect me because I don't buy movies over the net due to the restrictions on them.
Sony Pictures is technically a separate company, but yes, you can partially blame them for this as they are one of the major studios. And if you want, you can transfer that blame to the Sony parent company.
philmcphail (Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 23rd 2008 4:47PM
WTF?! Its Mr. ESC Liberation Front now? Why didn't I get a memo?!
Courtney @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:51PM
That's absurd.
Flit @ Sep 23rd 2008 7:31AM
Shouldn't the headline read, "think twice before DOWNLOADING PSN videos"? Honestly, who wants a movie that you can only watch on your ps3 and can only download 1.25 times. Broken. Microsoft isn't any better, but I think you can at least download the same movie you already bought if deleted....
David @ Sep 23rd 2008 8:00AM
Wouldn't that make them much, much better?
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:53PM
All the more reason why you're better off pirating movies instead of using services like this.
Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:13PM
I hate to say it but I agree. I started just streaming movies off of some of the many streaming sites instead of using torrents for "previewing" ;) purposes. Now, with ISPs getting in big trouble for violating Net Neutrality policies I just use torrent programs to test content out before I "purchase" anything.
Also, using my 360 & PS3 as a media server just makes more sense since it can be tricky hooking my laptop up to my TV and getting a good audio quality while streaming. It works great for watching on the laptop or even the imac in some cases but I just started using torrents since aXXo is now back and doing his thing again.
I'm not condoning pirating or acting like it is a good thing but it is real and the majority of tech savvy people do it every now and then.
The content is so readily available even without using torrents that you would have to be extremely valiant not to at the very least stream content.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:52PM
Agreed Tmac.
Ayrkain @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:07AM
I actually like Xam'd, so I usually pay the rental fee and then torrent the thing afterwards. 4 bucks an episode sound about right for a purchase.
Massmass @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:12AM
That's ridiculous and just a selfish attitude. Stealing does nothing for anyone. If people really want to make a statement - which they don't, they'd rather just bitch and moan while having their pirate cake - they'd totally ignore studios with bad business practices altogether. You know, make anything, regardless of quality, obsolete. Of course, that'd take real integrity which neither the consumers nor the evil corporations have. So please, go ahead, steal, continue to bitch about how you HAVE to steal, and continue to let nothing change and perhaps just get worse. Power to you!
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:23AM
Uhh ok I will. Why should pirates care if nothing changes? They're already getting the stuff for free and without all this DRM bullshit. Piracy definitely hurts the companies just as much as not buying the item does, so I don't see your point other than "Piracy's bad mmmk?"
Massmass @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:29AM
When a product fails, for whatever reason, the company changes its attitude about said product. Pirating still creates publicity for the companies, still allows then to be in denial, and still doesn't solve the problem. If people were to all out reject a product things would change. It's happened in the past when people couldn't pirate. 90% of the pirates I see online use bad corporate policies as an excuse for their stealing and that's what is rubbing me the wrong way. Just be honest, you're stealing because you're cheap and you can get away with it. There are several different mediums for most media, and not all have the same traits. So most of the time you can get around a problem, and if not, ignore the product entirely to get a real response from companies.
Vidikron @ Sep 23rd 2008 1:01AM
Treat people like pirates and they won't disappoint.
klitorisaurus @ Sep 23rd 2008 2:47AM
Well I paid $40+ Dollars for all of the "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" episodes back when the video store debuted. I deleted them to make room and once I found that I couldn't just re-download again I torrented them and put them on an external hard drive. Now every time I want to watch a TV show I just torrent it instead. Why should I pay money just to get hassled?
HighFiveJesus @ Sep 23rd 2008 4:33AM
ohh i LOVE aXXo's rips man!
Massmass @ Sep 23rd 2008 4:49AM
klitorisaurus:
Frankly, it's your own fault for not reading or understanding the TOS and such. However, I do think companies should allow up to three redownloads if a proper back-up scheme for your content is not available. Again though, since the TOS doesn't allow such things you as the consumer could have left a message to them explaining why you would like to use their service but won't due to their crappy policies. Then take your business elsewhere and advise everyone else you know to do so.
klitorisaurus @ Sep 23rd 2008 7:31AM
Because you read the TOS and EULA of every product you purchase and/or install on your machine? Don't be a douche. Until they let me use DLC as if I'd bought a DVD with the same content, I'll continue to "take my business elsewhere." I have three comps and a 500gb PS3 in my house and there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to freely interchange content between all of them.
Unfortunately, DRM exists because there's no way to differentiate between my 4 devices and one person who shares with three friends. So until they figure that out I'll continue to enjoy my shows without restriction, through whatever means necessary.
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Sep 23rd 2008 7:38AM
@Massmass: you are one little step from being **AA a**hole. Please finally do this step: then everybody can easily mod you down on sight.
"""Again though, since the TOS doesn't allow such things you as the consumer could have left a message to them explaining why you would like to use their service but won't due to their crappy policies."""
It's only law which can bar people from doing something. And the fact "TOS doesn't allow" relies on infamous DMCA which is constantly comes under critical fire and was already amended and clarified several(?) times.
Also DMCA is US specific, while many services are worldwide and not limited to US. So why the hell all have to bend over?
Massmass @ Sep 23rd 2008 8:14AM
Actually, any download service I use I do read the TOS so I know if I'm "renting" or actually owning. I don't read the B.S with installing PC games, but for things I know are capable of being screwy, yeah I have a brain and make sure I know what I'm purchasing.
Like I said, power to you pirates. You're simple thieves and that's fine for you. With video you can almost always purchase a hard copy disc nowadays so your excuse for pirating is just that, an excuse. No one forces you to purchase or view the content. So again, if you want to make excuses for your pirating, at least be honest with yourselves.
I'm not trying to start a pissing match, just trying to throw perspective back in the picture. If you truly feel that pirating is sticking it to them and that it somehow will change things down the line, I respect and disagree with your opinion on the matter and will die fighting for your right to express them.
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 23rd 2008 10:15AM
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if it will change things or not, cause they're still watching the movie for free and costing a sale from the company. Whether those sales lost add up to be a lot may or may not matter, and I'm sure the pirates don't care because as I said....they're still watching for free.
Lone Starr @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:55PM
I hear people saying "in the future, there will be no disks! We'll download everything!" As I see it, this sort of DRM will keep discs around OR people might actually download everything; they'll just use torrents.
This is not the story Sony wants or needs.
PersonOfSorts @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:02PM
You'd have to be insane to "purchase" a movie off of PSN. To rent? That's another story.
Organic_Shadow @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:03PM
Expect them to modify their download limitations within a few weeks of this bad press.
EA did it with DRM, and plenty of other companies do the same thing. Supposedly the download number limit on normal PSN downloads was upped in stealth a while back after a lot of upset customers were complaining about getting their lost content back.
This once-per-purchase limit is just Sony testing the waters. (but yes, it's a completely ridiculous first GUESS at what is appropriate for a limitation)
why not the LS2LS7? @ Sep 23rd 2008 9:31AM
Again, it's the studios, this only applies to movies.
And so Sony (Playstation group) can't modify the rules. And the studios won't modify the rules because they put them in place as a group. They're acting as a cartel, you don't have any real choice, you can simply buy or not buy, there's no competition.
It should be illegal for the studios to do this, and maybe it even is already; but they are getting away with it so far.
Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:04PM
It is absurd that video purchases may not work after installing a new HDD. Maybe they do it so people cant just clone an image of a HDD and get the content for free. I don't know about all that noise.
Maybe it's just a disclaimer that the content may get corrupted in the transfer process opposed to a draconian DRM measures.
I bought all of 1 episode off PSN anyway. However, I think Apple has a similar tandard for purchased content off iTunes. The biggest difference being that you can back up your content. However, I know from experience that you have to e-mail Apple and have them re-activate all your downloads so you can get them again.
I wonder is Microsoft has a similar policy for content over their competing video service.
Dadidito @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:22PM
with the exception of rentals, microsoft has no problem with it. I know. My itty bitty 20Gb is always redownloading deleted kiddie shows ive purchased when the kids want to see them again. I just go back in and download them again. Then they go when I need space for the latest demo, etc.
This is bad press. No way around it. Its pretty much assumed that movies aren't yours if you get them as a rental but if you are paying full price as in a dvd/blueray they should be.
Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:45PM
Yeah I expect this to be changed quickly. Especially if the competitor doesn't have a similar policy. I know iTunes has the same thing but it is a bit different talking about a computer HDD vs the PS3's HDD which gets filled just from game installs.
Unrelated:
A game got the install thing right - for once since Uncharted. The game Pure (I bought it) has an optional install procedure on the PS3. It says you can have long load times or install and have no loading times. I installed but it was nice to have a choice.
Dirty @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:06PM
I wish is was 2 steps forward 1 step back..... this seems like 1 step forward 2 steps back.
DangerMouse @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:07PM
The price of the movies on there are a fucking joke to begin with. I wouldn't buy that crap anyway. That's not how you handle digital distribution, especially to people willing to put up with your bullshit pricing structure, Sony.
Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:19PM
The value of digital distribution is not really in purchasing full length movies. Rather, buying TV shows & renting new release movies seem to be the way to go value wise. It is a new service but it has much of the same content as iTunes does on its video store. It's pretty rare that I purchase a full length movie but I have purchased a lot of 1 hour episodes for $1.99.
pat1202003 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:09PM
Whoa! I had no idea about this thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure not to buy anything until I upgrade my hard drive.
DrunkRaba @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:20PM
its been like this since the store launched and bitched about each week on the playstation blog when we get the list of new content. really old news, but if Sony changes this stupid policy, as well as limited rentals and high prices, then hooray
GoldenS1104 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:22PM
This is why digital downloads should never replace physical discs as a means of media distribution. There are too many issues with losing and transferring content that it's more trouble than it's worth. Sure, some company's have done this better than Sony has in this instance, but there is really no way to make it perfect.
Metal_Gear @ Sep 23rd 2008 9:46AM
Exactly. I just wish Wipeout HD was going to be on a Blu-Ray for £20 rather than the £12 download price.
Granted, this is a pretty crap way to do it, cant see why they couldn't do it like the game section but meh, Blu-Rays are getting cheaper and I'd rather have The Dark Knight special edition with loads of extras than a download of the movie only.
Worse still, Europe doesn't even have the Video Store yet, so even bigger MEH from me.
jackbauer @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:23PM
make your programs easier accessible, and online or someone else will.
Matt Dusza @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:37PM
man 1st 2 comments alreay hating on sony.... its called drm.... yea t sucks, but its an annoyingly necessary evil that EVERYONE does, not just sony....
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:51PM
And your point? That doesn't mean that we just sit by and accept it.
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:57PM
Except it's not necessary since it doesn't stop pirates at all. I can go download a movie right now, any one I want, and even copy it on my PS3 to watch later just to add insult to injury.
Same thing with games, DRM doesn't stop anyone. I think Spore by now is the most pirated game ever, so much for that DRM ea put in.
Roto13 @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:04AM
Xbox doesn't do it.
Ayrkain @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:14AM
It's true that MS doesn't do this with Video downloads, but they tie your account to your box differently. Because of that, they're actually more restrictive about DRM on games. I don't need a transfer kit to change HDD's on my PS3 (if I want to play my downloadable games while not online) - I just redownload them - but the trade-off is you lose video content in the process.
Tarheel @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:42PM
I haven't downloaded any movies (I have netflix), but I did notice during the first week of the service that the couple of Family Guy's I bought to try it out didn't stay on the download list like it does on the Games section. Don't see the point of using the service if that's the case (how many fewer games would you buy if that end was set up this way?)
I'm not faulting SCE on this one though. It was probably the only way they could get some studios to sign on.