Playstation 3 Video DRM Only Allows One Download 316
Nom du Keyboard points out an Ars Technica report that the Sony Video Store on the Playstation Network is running some rather restrictive DRM. When purchasing movies, users are allowed just one download — even if they delete the movie to make space and want to download it again on the same machine. A Sony representative told Ars that users could be issued an extra download as a "one-time courtesy" with help from customer support. Quoting:
"When we're discussing a system that seems to release new hardware configurations every few months and a company that actively encourages you to swap hard drives yourself, it appears users are going to run into problems if they ever decide they want to switch out their hard drive or even upgrade into a larger system; the information on the back-up utility makes it clear that video content can't be moved over to new system, although new hard drives should be safe. Sony claims that the PS3 is operating on a 10-year timeline: is one extra download, which you need to contact customer service to apply for, good enough for the next decade?"
Courtosy download? (Score:5, Insightful)
How kind of them to privilage us with an extra download for something we paid for.
It almost feel like your renting a product, but never owning it.
You'd have to be mental.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what the prices are at the Sony Video Store - but if they are any substantial fraction of the cost of the physical media, then you should just buy the disc instead.
With the DRM on DVD a defeated minion of darkness, and BluRay certain to go the same way, the format with the most longevity, barring manufacturing defects, is a pressed ROM disc. You can be sure that you will be able to read, transcode, format-shift and enjoy these to your hearts content.
Not so for something that vanishes in a puff of virtual smoke when some vital component of your console goes "phut".
Less value for my money (Score:5, Insightful)
I intend to avoid downloadable content until it's at least as flexible as physical media. I want the ability to move my copy of a movie from machine to machine, and to lend it, give it or sell it to somebody else once I'm done with it. A one-time download is a sucker's deal.
Re:Apple do the same.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I'm frankly surprised this is news, given that iTunes' similar behavior -- with a much greater user base -- doesn't seem to merit a peep.
So STUPID! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one learns anything from Valve/Steam. I was against Steam initially, but it's seductive because it's just so damn easy. All I have to do is log in, and it brings my games to me.
The lesson there to be learned is, if DRM makes your life easier, then people are more willing to put up with it. But if it makes your life harder? If it exists to screw you out of what you've already bought? Screw that.
Until the content providers remember that their supposed job is to provide CONTENT, then they're doomed to a declining market share and consumer antipathy.
Remember kids, digital downloads are the future! (Score:5, Insightful)
DVDs are dying! Blu-Ray is going nowhere! Why would anyone buy a real physical disk when for almost as much money you could use your limited bandwith allowance downloading a copy which will last unti the hard drive, or the console dies. Oh, and you don't get the extras. Erm, and it's unclear what happens if something goes wrong with the download. Oh, yeah, and you can probably download about 10 before you have to delete one.
WTF?
Re:Rental only (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you buy something from a store, and then throw it away, the store is obligated to give you another item?
Interesting.
SONY? With DRM?? NOOOOOO!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony would NEVER do anything like that! [wikipedia.org]
Next you'll be telling me banks [uncyclopedia.org] are acting irresponsibly and the government [uncyclopedia.org] doesn't act in my interest!
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
If the content providers keep having their way then we'd be paying for media on a per-track, per-listen basis. Those ideas have been their wet dream even since before piracy was widespread.
That's my rationalization for reaching for the 'torrent, what's yours?
Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't download movies from Sony.
No downloads means no profit which means Sony will rethink their policy.
Re:Oliver Twist anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Courtosy download? (Score:1, Insightful)
You pay for the right to download it. Once. To a system that you know is closed. Why would anyone expect Sony to allow their bandwidth to be re-used for free?
It's not like they're being anything other than upfront about it.
If you move to another system where you no longer have the movie in future: just buy it again. It will be cheaper (in terms of YOUR PRECIOUS TIME) than fiddling about with moving files from one machine to another.
*irony ends*
I was a sony fan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
If I purchase a copyrighted "something" at a store, I dang well expect that it would work on more than just the one machine I used it first in. If it's compatible, it should run in it.
I also expect that should I have to replace it more than once, the item still work.
Additionally, I expect that if someone is selling me something that restricts my rights as the purchaser under the cover of attempting to protect their own as the copyright holder, that those restrictions are reasonable and not simply in place as a surrogate method of forcing me to buy more copies of the item.
For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.
Re:Apple do the same.. (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes doesn't lock your files down to a single machine though - they lock them to an account which can follow you effectively forever. Between computers, between devices, etc. Your account always is good to play your files. This allows you the specific freedom of BACKING UP your information.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like Apple's DRM either, but it HAS been the least problematic I've seen. Amazon Unbox for Video for example lets you play a "purchased" file on 2 machines only, and it has a terrible little Windows service that runs in the background to "authorize" your playback with the mothership. If that service screws up then your media files simply aren't going to play (and I've just deleted the 3 episodes of Battlestar Galactica I bought from them after all the problems I had with it).
I think with Sony, the problem is that you CAN'T make a backup of the file. You can with Apple, and you can with non-DRM'd media. As a matter of fact, I'd be fine with it if they didn't allow redownloads AT ALL if they didn't include DRM. I don't expect the store to give me a new copy of a DVD that I sit on or leave in a hot car, so I don't expect a new copy of a file that I lost either. HOWEVER, I do want the ability to make backup copies of that data so that I can be secure in the knowledge that my entire movie or song collection isn't hinging on a single hard drive crash.
The problem ALL this hits though, is that it's getting too device specific. If I want to play a DVD I buy it. I've been through 3 TV's and about 5 DVD players since I started buying DVD's. Now, digital downloads are looking to be the next bid thing, but look at the current scene: Xbox360 sells movies and TV shows, but they play only on an Xbox360. Apple does the same, but they play only through your computer or an AppleTV. Sony is now doing the same, but they play only through a PS3. Amazon Unbox does it - and they play only through Windows computers or a compatible Tivo.
How many disjointed systems is it going to take for them to realize that this isn't going to work? If I buy a new awesome media player box I want it to play EVERYTHING. I don't want to have to switch devices over and over as I flip between different movies I purchased on various systems. These devices need to operate with a common format. The only way to make this all work long term is to kill DRM. A user needs to be able to "own" and move about their files as easily as they once shifted around their DVD discs or VHS cassettes.
Re:So STUPID! (Score:4, Insightful)
The nice thing with steam is that it is basically unlimited downloads/installs. Don't need to keep track of a disc or anything - just remember your username/password to Steam. You can even download the Steam client. And then all the games you've purchased on Steam are right there, ready to be (re)downloaded and (re)installed.
Very handy. It actually becomes more convenient, if you have a good Internet connection, to buy through Steam.
Of course there are lots of issues if you don't have working Internet...
Just stick with your PC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple do the same.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The main difference is that it's trivially easy to back up your own iTunes library.
From a customer-service perspective it seems to me that it would be even easier if Apple just supported re-downloads. Compare all the effort of each person individually backing up their shit versus the effort for apple to enable the feature and then support the occasional re-download.
I just rented my first movie through the PSN Store (Score:3, Insightful)
I will say, however, that this ONE download per purchased movie stuff is utter BS. Have they learned nothing from the Steam/Valve model?
But more damning, I think, is that the selection absolutely SUCKS. You could not cobble together a more random selection of (mostly) shitty movies/TV shows if you tried. It's really pathetic. There are some gems, but most of it is utter shit. I guess their target demographic are pubescent teens who think Wil Farrell is funny and "Step Brothers" should be on AFI's Top 100 list. There are a couple of Kubrick films (Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange) which add a heavy weighted value to the selection, but still...
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the issue here, the circumstances don't match.. If you buy something from a store you get a hard copy of the cd/dvd. You break it, tough luck.
When it comes to pc's, it's often not us that break them, or you want to upgrade or you've ran out of space. With this method they force you to lose your purchases with no possible way to transfer them, back them up to some form of removable media (the normal way people create more space on their computer) or redownload them. If you can't back them up and you have no space you HAVE to delete them, they are giving you no choice in the matter. These situations are unavoidable with a pc and if you provide a download service you should at least either provide unlimited downloads of your material, or you should be able to back them up easily (and legally).
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
So if i scratch up my cd or dvd, I'm entitled to a new one? Interesting..
Re:So STUPID! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm not a fan of DRM no matter what, but if you must have DRM, I think Steam is a pretty good model. As you mentioned, the DRM lets them makes it so they don't really have to worry about restricting downloads or copies. I broke down and bought the Orange Box on Steam, and it is kind of nice that I can have it installed on any machine I want, and be able to download it to additional machines at any time, the only restriction being that I have to sign in before I play it. That paired with assurances that they'll crack the DRM before they drop support or go under keeps me more or less satisfied.
On the other hand, I think part of the reason it works is because it's games. When I'm playing computer games, I'm generally in a relatively stationary situation. I usually use my desktop system, for example, rather than my laptop, because it has more power. Having to connect to Steam to play games might be a deal-breaker if I were in the habit of playing those games "on the go", or in places without internet access.
When it comes to music, and to a lesser degree movies, I do want access "on the go". So in some cases the Steam model might not work. But for my PS3, which sits in my living room all day long? Sure, why not?
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know any service in which one purchases content to be stores on you own media where a second download is allowed. Now, if one is not allowed to backup the content, or transfer it to another device, then that may be considered more restrictive than normal.
The entire point of DRM content is that the content is restricted to approved playback devices. Allowing multiple downloads to the only approved device is not the same as allowing someone to download it willy-nilly onto fifty computers.
The point this article is making is the lack of options to re-obtain your content, as you are not allowed to backup the media, nor can you store it physically on any kind of medium other than the disk in your playstation.
Lesson in property (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't control it, you don't own it.
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends, do you own the copy or did you license the copy.
-If you *own the copy* then you are screwed since you are allowed to do as you wish with the copy short of making copies of it. That includes trashing/destroying the disc.
-If you *license the copy* then you can get a replacement media copy or even copy another Good disc but keep the defective one as proof of license.
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I'm all for companies like Sony forcing such intrusive DRM on the public.
The quicker they cross the line where it inconveniences your average consumer, the quicker we'll get to the point where DRM becomes a total flop.
DRM on downloadable games is broken too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oliver Twist anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose for some users, it's seen as wasteful to mod AC comments, aside from the negative mods.
Re:Oliver Twist anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
How can a first post be modded Redundant?/quote>
If you'll allow a bit of further insight (although this comment is going to be unlikely to actually be moderated as such), that's because "Redundant" (along with "Overrated") is one of those mod options that really mean "I've got mod points and I don't like this comment".
Unlike "Flamebait" or "Troll", which are easy to check in meta-moderation, "Redundant" is impossible to judge in hindsight without actually going to the story and checking the remaining comments, which of course no meta-moderator is actually going to do. Therefore, it's an easy way to downmod comments you don't like without getting meta-moderated as Unfair afterwards.
Re:Apple do the same.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Several things make this completely different on the PS3:
1. Apple is completely upfront about it. You're told, multiple times, that you only get the one download. After you've downloaded a bunch of content, iTunes will bug you to backup the content and offers a feature to do so.
Every other type of PS3 download allows five downloads, so movies being restricted to just one is a bit unexpected.
2. Apple allows you to copy the files around. PS3 content is locked to the console - it can't be backed up in any way, since you can't copy it off the console. (Annoyingly this includes save games!)
3. If iTunes hoses its library, you don't lose your content. I know this first hand - I've had iTunes destroy its library, and got to restore it from backup. This was as simple as copying the backed up files back into iTunes. (So I'm not exactly an Apple fanboy, since this has happened multiple times. Fun. Sadly I'm stuck with iTunes if I want to play my downloaded tracks, which taught me a bit about blindly accepting DRM.)
When a Sony update hoses your PS3 [slashdot.org], you're screwed: that content is just gone. Since there's no way to get it back, and you can't download it, it's just lost.
Retarded Sony Management Strike Again (Score:2, Insightful)
This is absolutely ridiculous!
The only valid reason for such restrictive DRM and rights (it's just "rental for the life of your hardware or until you run out of space" - thank god it's not a 360 I guess) is to put people off the idea of digital downloads.
Apple have shown that DRM can be applied in a light manner that works for most people. Stick it on up to 5 computers, deauthorise computers in order to authorise others, back up the media. There is simply no excuse to implement anything less.
Call it a rental. Charge rental prices. Delete it after 30 days. Fine.
Call it a sale, charge full price, and then limit how you use it? No. No fracking way.
Re:Rental only (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.
You don't own it. It's hard to argue that you even own a license to it.
It is quite a funny concept that anything protected by authentication-based DRM can ever be "sold", since your use of what you "bought" is entirely controlled by someone else.
All that you really "buy" when you pay for DRM'd content is the right to keep asking, "dear rights holder, can you please tell my device it's okay for me to watch this?", and after that you have to cross your fingers. In most cases the answer is going to be "yes", or the economy of the system will fail massively. However, nothing guarantees that the answer will be "yes", and here we are discussing just one instance where perhaps it should be but isn't.
I agree with the OP, nobody should be allowed to misrepresent a DRM-encumbered transaction as a sale. You don't have most of the rights, use-wise or other, that are normally associated with a sale.
Re:Rental only (Score:3, Insightful)
For my part, I stick with Steam. Unlimited downloads. Hell, even if they charged me a buck to cover bandwidth and storage I wouldn't feel bad for a 50 dollar game. I've never had an issue with Steam and as long as they keep up their track record I'm going to keep with it. I've even passed up on several games because I couldn't get a Steam copy.
Anybody surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd think that with the BluRay+ features, that people would have a hint?
You'd think that with the rootkit fiasco, people would get a clue?
You'd think with the ATRAC format, and the way Sony MP3 players behaved in 'converting' ALL YOUR MUSIC, that it would be an iota of a hint...
Nope. We are all just idiots and want "bluray". It's exactly why I supported HD-DVD at the time. You reap what you sow.
Either way, I've been boycotting Sony on all fronts until their ways change.
Valve Steam (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that hard. Steam is value-added DRM - which means the impetus to crack it is low. I've had pirated Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Ep. 1, but Steam was easier than managing that (well, that and the games were worth every penny)
Steam has seen me through 3 computers and 8 OS reinstalls. I double-click a game and come back when it's 60% downloaded, and play it. That's worth money to me, even if it is stuck in my account and linked to their servers.
I don't see what's so hard about re-implementing Steam, aside from the fact that it doesn't allow the producer to double-dip (sell you a license when you try to copy it, but change it to a product when it breaks)
And I fear that's the crux of this whole thing - they're hoping that people will just re-buy.
Re:Their copyright should be toast (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is not that people want stuff for free. If you think that you're either being deliberately obtuse or are ignorant. The point is the scope and extent of copyright, especially in regards to consumer "purchases" which are actually just licenses according to "the man". There has long been an argument by "intellectual property" owners that we, the consumer, are not actually buying anything when we purchase a CD or game (fortunately book publishers do completely admit that when you buy a book, you can do what you want with it). The trouble is, if you're buying a license to use said music or software for any period of time, you should know your fucking rights beforehand. This is absolutely impossible now for the end user with the licenses and EULAs etc. Legalese has made it impossible for end users to make informed choices about purchases - the reason everyone just clicks yes is because they simply do not have enough time on this earth to read everything they agree to. Any kind of restrictive license aimed at end users is inherently shit purely because end users will not read the terms.
Video and DVD rental is obviously different because everyone already knows the basic terms of the rental. However, unreasonable terms on DVD rental (like, for example only being able to play it on one machine) are not expected.
Also, finishing each snide question with interesting? Shit.
People who say, 'quit whining', fail to think. (Score:3, Insightful)
i don't buy groceries and expect to use them more than once
Muffins aren't digital.
Every muffin you eat and want to replace means the farmers and bakers and shipping people need to get busy, and need to be paid for their efforts. A media company, however, doesn't have to invest in more worker hours or physical resources to give you another identical Mickey Mouse. So why should they be paid an equivalent amount for a digital duplicate?
Only one reason. Because people like you have been duped into thinking that Muffins and Mickeys are the same thing. They're not.
-FL