Hey everybody, how's it going? Hope you

have a lovely day. Welcome to today's

episode of How You Getting [ __ ] I'm

your host, Louis Rossmann. Remember the

video that I did about 3 years ago, Sony

Steals Customer's Purchased Content,

Piracy Is Completely Justified? That

video was referring to a message that

many people got from Sony. As of

December 31st, 2023, due to our content

licensing arrangements with content

providers, you will no longer be able to

watch any of your previously purchased

Discovery content, and the content will

be removed from your video library. We

sincerely thank you for your continued

support. They're not saying that you're

not going to be able to watch content on

Netflix, where you're paying a monthly

fee to be able to access and stream what

they have. They said that what you had

purchased,

purchased, that's in your library, has

been taken away from you. Imagine if you

went to Barnes & Noble and you bought a

bunch of books, and 5 or 10 years later

you walked into your house and you

walked into the room that your books

were in, and you noticed that a bunch of

them are missing from your bookshelf

because Barnes & Noble took them back,

but they never gave you a refund.

That's not okay, and that's exactly what

they did over here. The reason that they

were doing this is because they didn't

actually own the content that they were

making available to you. Sony does not

own the films and shows it sold to the

store. Sony licenses them from the

studios that produced them and has no

ownership of that content. So, let's get

this straight. I have a house. Let's say

I sell my house for $500,000 to you.

Let's say 5 years later somebody comes

by and just takes the house from me and

doesn't give you the money back, and the

original owner doesn't give you the

money back, and the reason they give is,

"Well, that's actually my house, and the

person who sold it to you had no right

to sell it to you."

In that arc of a story, how did somebody

not commit a crime?

Here, there was no crime committed. They

were able to use the word purchase to

describe what they were selling you,

but they didn't say until page 26 in

their terms of service, "Use of the

terms own, ownership, purchase, sale,

sold, sell, rent, or buy in this

agreement or in connection with the

content does not mean or imply any

transfer of ownership of any content,

data, or software, or any intellectual

property rights." And they've actually

done it again. So, originally they took

it back. About a few days later, they

said, "Due to updated licensing

arrangements, the Discovery content

removal plans is no longer occurring. We

appreciate your ongoing support and

feedback." It looked like they changed

their minds, and yeah, lol jk. This is a

message that many people got and have

emailed me. As of September 1st, 2026,

due to our content licensing

arrangements, you will no longer be able

to watch any of your previously

purchased StudioCanal content, and the

content will be removed from your video

library. Thank you, PlayStation Store.

Play has no limits, even if the

definition of own does.

Yeah, no no limits my balls, [ __ ]

You guys have limited the definitions of

the word sale, sold, purchase, own. Like

there's nothing that PlayStation does

more than limit. you to think about what

these companies have gotten mad about

for the longest period of time. What

they've gotten mad at is not piracy,

it's copyright infringement. It's when

you go onto BitTorrent or Usenet or

eMule or an IRC DCC bot or Soulseek, and

you download a copy of something from

somebody else. I can't make a copy of

this for myself, because apparently I

don't really own it. But, they can make

a copy of something that they don't own

and sell it to me and take it away from

me later. And that's okay.

How is that any better than piracy?

They're claiming that when you make a

digital copy of this and you give it to

somebody because you did not own the

rights to it, that's bad. But, they're

allowed to sell something that they

don't own the rights to, and then

they're allowed to take it back from

you. When you download a copy of a movie

off of BitTorrent, the person that you

downloaded it from has not profited from

this. In my opinion, that is less

immoral than what Sony did, because not

only is Sony distributing something that

does not belong to them, they are doing

it for money. There's a reason that I

say piracy is completely justified,

because none of this makes any sense.

You're not allowed to sell things that

don't belong to you with the word sale,

sold, or purchase. Like just imagine

this for a moment. Imagine that you have

a library. My dad had a room in our

house. It wasn't a real library, but he

called it the library. It had four four

bookshelves of all the books that he'd

been collecting since he was a kid.

Imagine you buy a book, and then 5 years

later that book that you purchased from

Barnes & Noble is no longer there,

because somebody broke into your house

and took it away. And imagine Barnes &

Noble said, "Oh, lol, sorry. We didn't

have to have the rights to sell that to

you, so we had to take it back." And

then you say, "Well, A, you broke into

my house, but forget about that for a

moment. Can you give me my money back?"

And they say, "No."

is completely justified at this point

because we live in a world we live in a

legal system where this is legal. But,

taking a copy of my Black Mirror legally

purchased Blu-ray and ripping it with

this Pioneer BDR-2213 so I can watch a

high-resolution copy on my laptop on the

plane when I'm flying away is not.

Me being able to use what I bought and

paid for is illegal. I am breaking

section 1201 of the DMCA. The person who

made the tool for this drive that allows

me to break the encryption in this

Blu-ray so I can rip a copy for personal

use is somebody that could be sent to

prison for 3 to 5 years. But, the person

who took the content that I legally paid

for, thousands of dollars of stuff in my

content library, out of my library is

just That's a business model. No.

This is [ __ ] stupid. And there's a

reason that I have these things and I've

had these things behind me on the desk

for a long time. This box disappeared

recently after I cleaned up, but I want

to explain a little bit.

I have a lot of tools here that I use

for things that many media companies

don't like. I have the SiliconDust

HDHomeRun. I've had it for almost 20

years now. You can use it to get

DRM-free recordings. Picture perfect, no

extra compression of over-the-air

high-definition television broadcasts,

and I can record those broadcasts, which

I have for a long time. I wanted to

watch 24 and Prison Break, and I didn't

want to deal with the low-resolution

DVDs. So, I have this thing so that I

could record high-definition copies, and

I would share them with my friends at

the time as a teenager. I have this

BDR-2213, which allows me to rip full 4K

copies of my Blu-rays. However, I also

pay for my Blu-rays. I pay for the

content I find valuable. Up to the point

of having this in my collection. This is

SUSE Linux 8.1. This is a Linux

distribution. I paid I don't know if the

focus is going to work on this. I paid

$79.99

in 2002 to buy this. I was a teenager. I

was 13 years old when I purchased Linux.

Most people that I knew don't even

purchase Windows, and here I am paying

for an open-source operating system.

When I find something valuable, when it

respects my freedom, I am happy to pay

the asking price. I want to show that

when somebody provides me with value, I

will provide them with that value in

return. I am more than happy to pay for

the things that I find valuable. What I

am not willing to do is have you limit

my freedom with [ __ ] restrictions

and rip me off in this particular

matter. The reason that it is so

important that you be able to break a

digital lock, the reason it is so

important that I be able to break all

the encryption on these Blu-rays and rip

them, the reason that it is important

that you be able to have the freedom to

do these things is because when you

don't, you have a company that can

literally redefine what the word own

means and then rip content from your

library while having the balls to say

that WE HAVE NO LIMITS. YOU HAVE A

[ __ ] limit. If I can buy something

from you in 2021 with the word purchase

and you can take it away from me without

refunding me my money in 2026, that's a

[ __ ] limit, Sony, and you shouldn't

be allowed to do that. But at the very

least, if you're going to be allowed to

do that [ __ ] I should be allowed to

pirate your [ __ ]

Seriously, if this happens to any of you

and you go on BitTorrent or Usenet or

eMule and you get a copy of whatever it

is they took away from you from somebody

who ripped a perfectly lossless copy

with one of these devices, you should be

able to. There's a reason that it is

important that you be able to break

digital locks because content providers

have broken the social contract time and

time and time and time again. Something

is seriously wrong if we live in a

society where me ripping a copy of my

legally owned Blu-ray is legal, but them

stealing your content is not.

That's crazy. A lot of you have emailed

me with this issue and I appreciate it,

but I would appreciate even more than

that is if you would go to

consumerrights.wiki while you're writing

that email and create an article. We're

trying to create the best centralized

database that is open source that

anybody can contribute. You can make a

lot of articles here without even

logging in that goes over every single

time a company has tried to revoke

ownership or change the terms of the

sale after the sale in this way. My

nonprofit is going to be fighting for

ownership. We're working to reform

anti-ownership laws in the United States

and we're working to ensure that stuff

like this just doesn't go this way.

We're going to have some signature

pieces of legislation that we're hoping

to get pushed later this year and what

we need is when the opposition lobby is

show up and and this is a problem that

doesn't exist, they're making it up. I

want to be able to put on their desk the

equivalent of stacks of phone books just

filled with every single instance of the

very companies that they represent

taking part in this anti-consumer,

anti-ownership [ __ ] Don't let

yourself be gaslit. Most people are

actually willing to pay for the things

that they find valuable, but they don't

want to pay for this.

And we've learned over 30 years into

this that this is not a working business

model.

>> Unfortunately, at least in some areas

our policies haven't worked out too

well. Our attempts at copyright control,

at least as far, have not been

successful, but I don't just blame

teenagers and and college students. I

really blame the the moguls in the music

industry because had they been thinking

about these business models

when we were doing our work in 1994, the

Clinton administration, had they been

developing effective online distribution

models when the internet first came into

business, had been talking to Steve Case

when AOL first started to become a big

deal, and really seriously developing an

online business model, perhaps we would

not be in the situation that we are. But

the culture of that industry was such

that, you know, those people were

concerned principally with uh

you know, and their talents were

developing talent, understanding public

taste. They didn't know anything about

distribution or technology or anything

like that. Minions dealt with that.

Well, their industry has paid the price.

Hopefully there's not any, you know, I

won't be quoted in the US, but I I'm

afraid our Clinton administration

policies didn't work out very well.

>> Now, a lot of people accused me at the

time of doing an end run around Congress

and everybody else by negotiating these

treaties and then coming back and

saying, "Well, we have because we

submitted this to Congress before the

treaties

uh process was completed." Then coming

back and saying, "Well, now you have to

do this, Congress, because we have

agreed to a treaty." And I would say

that they're probably right. That it was

an end run, and it was partly

deliberate. And the final statute that

comes out, you know, it a guy who was

the head of then the biggest record

company in the world, Warner Records,

and he was very nice guy, and he wrote a

book a few years later after he retired

and confirmed what I always thought to

be the case about record industry

executives. Record industry executives

are impresarios. And the typical the

best the most successful record industry

executives, I would characterize as

45-year-old man who can think like a

17-year-old girl and likes to hang out

in the morning and do drugs with rock

stars. And he basically admitted to all

of that in his book that he wrote

several years later. Unfortunately, that

is not a way that is not a mindset a

part of the brain that does very well at

evolving new business models for highly

complex technologies.

>> All of this needs reform, and we're

going to be working to do that piece by

piece by piece. We're not going to get

everything that we want immediately, but

I'm going to be working to chip away at

the most unfair parts of these laws as

often as I can. And when the time comes

and we have a piece of legislation

introduced, I hope that you'll be open

to working with us to make it happen.

That's it for today, and as always, I

hope you learned something. I'll see you

in the next video. Bye now.

You know, actually before I end it, this

is a Sony camcorder. I got it fixed

recently, and I really thought this

would be me being petty, but like I had

a issue with the lens and I had an issue

with with this thing after some physical

damage. And what I know there's a button

over here. I don't even use this button,

but what I notice is that every other

way that you press the button, it

automatically returns to where it was.

When you press it down, it doesn't

return to the center anymore, and it

didn't do that before I sent it off. And

it's just one of these things where I

I'm a repair company. I've been on the

other end of this doesn't like this

before you touched it so many times. I

just wasn't going to be the dude that

was going to do that to another repair

company. I just I don't have it in me to

be a customer. They gave me the wrong

quote. It took them a week to re-look at

the device to give me a quote for what I

originally asked for. They said three

times that they never even received it

when they did. I don't file a charge I I

bad about complaining about that. I felt

bad about filing a chargeback.

[ __ ] that.

I'm filing a chargeback on Sony today.

You revoked ownership from tens of

thousands of people.

You sold stuff you don't even own.

I'll file a chargeback for you messing

up the button on my camcorder.

Completely unrelated to the topic of the

video.