Sony just announced that over 550 movies will be removed from the accounts of PlayStation customers. On September 1, 2026, any movies or TV shows from Studio Canal will be removed. The move sparked controversy, drew criticism, and reignited a debate about digital ownership.
Those affected by the maneuver have no recourse to retain access to the content. There's no option to download the content for offline playback on another device. Sony isn't offering refunds either.
Several quotes have popped up repeatedly in online forums about Sony's announcement, such as "if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't theft." But a different quote about piracy came to my mind:
Piracy is not a pricing issue. It’s a service issue.
Gabe Newell (2011)
Gabe Newell, the co-founder of Valve, explained that providing excellent service is the best method to combat piracy. He added that, "The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates."
Newell specifically referenced localization efforts during his time on stage at the Washington Technology Industry Association's (WTIA) Tech NW conference, but the principles he broke down apply to what Sony is doing.
If "buying" content only gives you access for an undetermined amount of time dependent on volatile corporate licensing deals, the service is fundamentally broken. Naturally, people will look for other methods to acquire the same content.
You wouldn't steal a car
The infamous "You wouldn't steal a car" commercial pushed back against piracy over 20 years ago. The ad has received its fair share of criticism over the years, but please humor me as I look at it from a different angle.
If pirating digital content is akin to stealing a car, what is selling digital content and then revoking access without offering a refund? In this hypothetical world in which physical goods work the same way as digital content, what Sony is doing is like selling someone a DVD then breaking into their house and stealing it back after a few years.
I imagine Sony's legal team is getting ready to argue that people agree to terms and that Sony reserved the right to revoke access. But that's nonsense. When people obtained content through Sony, they clicked a button that said "Buy."
That Buy button was presented right next to a "Rent" button in most cases, meaning Sony was offering people two choices: purchase a piece of content or rent it.
Even Sony's statement sent informing people of the removal of Studio Canal content uses the word "purchased" rather than rent:
"As of 1 September 2026 due to our content licensing arrangements, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Studio Canal content and the content will be removed from your video library."
Sony could argue that people purchased a revocable license, but if that's the case the company never should have used a Buy button.
Could this happen to Xbox?
Anything is possible, but I don't want to venture into speculation. We're trying to get confirmation from Microsoft regarding digital ownership of media.
What I will say is that legal protections of digitally purchased content need to be secured. Reportedly, over 90% of Xbox games are purchased digitally. PlayStation isn't that far behind, with digital sales reportedly making up 78% of purchases.
Buying habits have shifted dramatically over the last decade. There are plenty of gamers with entirely digital collections. The advent of online streaming has made physical movie collections rarer, though I know many cinephiles who cling to physical copies.
If companies want to continue to sell movies, TV shows, and games, potential buyers need confidence that purchases are secure. Otherwise, people will take some inspiration from Sea of Thieves.
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.
