Anytime I've rented or borrowed something, from an actual place, they have placed a defined return date on it.

"We'll revoke access when we feel like it" doesn't sound like a proper rental. How do I know I'll even be able to finish watching the movie once before it is revoked?

The courts generally require contracts to have "mutual interest" or whatever the term is. Basically, both parties have to get something out of the deal. I pay the money, I get access to the movie.

If the rental period is indefinite, then the only reason to stop offering it should be technical or logistical - IE something actually broke in the company's systems. We were stupid, consolidated on this one cloud system that turned out to be based in one room in some guy's basement, there are no backups, and there was a fire.

Not a company decision to not renew a licensing agreement.

I agree.

Probably not as good for Sony, like I said, the money they saved on the contracts was probably minimal to nothing, now they're eating a whole lot of bad press over it. For those who have lost the titles and care, how likely are they to buy from Sony again?

This might not work out the way you think. Generally speaking, with torrenting, you are not prosecuted for downloading the media. The prosecution is for UPLOADING the media, at least fragments of it, to others.

You'd need to set yourself up as an absolute leech - 0% upload. Might take a while to get the media file in that case. In which case one is unlikely to get the threatening letter in the first place.

Yes, the court system is nitpicky enough for that to matter.

It is going to depend on when they knew they were going to force the switch. If they knew internally they were going to do it a year ago then issues, if they figured they might need to do it but nothing was finalized then not really a legal issue.
Business have the right to change.
the problem they would have is if the ads guarnenteed or implied a lifetime of the such services.

At least to be like Steam - it is understood that people who buy things get said license in perpetuity.
IE they might buy a 10 year license for SELLING said titles, but they still get to provide said titles to those that purchased them after the license expired.
It sounds like Sony, for what was probably a trivial savings, wrote bad contracts. Or their system can't handle not having something for sale yet still downloadable by those who have previously purchased it.

Yes, but once one is ripping, the important part is the digital copy without DRM under your control, not the DVD itself.

Even the physical copy in hand doesn't guarantee continued possession. Besides just needing to protect the disc from things like fire, physical abuse, and more, an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two.

I'm sure they have some definition for it somewhere in the legislation, probably an appendix or glossary.
"Designed to be worn on the body during operation or use, such as watches, hearing aids/headphones, body monitors, glasses, etc..."

Two decades old would probably mean you're considering NiMH rechargeable vs Alkaline primary - 1.2V vs 1.5. On the other hand, NiMH cells have much lower internal resistance, which makes it such that NiMH cells can actually provide more power, as the 1.5V of Alkaline gets pulled down to 1.2V or less much faster, as load increases.
Today, it'd be LiIon more often, though lithium primary cells exist as well, and both tend to be ~3V and low internal resistance. Yes, the primary cell, along with chemistries like zinc-air, are very long lived, but as it is easy to make the battery last all day and then just recharge at night, not actually that big of a deal.

1. Sony should be forced to refund the original purchases, no matter how old they are. If the consumer was only "borrowing" the media, then Sony was only "borrowing" the money.
2. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of Rum. IE Piracy.

His show was costing over $100 million a year, higher than competators, with him getting over $15 million. the total cost and the lack of money he was bring in from ads was low, means that the the show was a money loss.
But sure the colored man got him removed, keep believing your conspiracy garbage.

One only needs to look at Hollywood when major players consolidate, the immediate shock does not just leave a passive vacuum, it actively triggers a "creative fragmentation", where experienced talent and abandoned mid-market budgets migrate outward, giving rise to highly innovative, independent competitors like A24 or Blumhouse that otherwise might never have found a foothold.
At the same time we can look at other examples that the same people who are blocking this merger got their wish. If the proposed $3.8 billion buyout of Spirit Airlines by JetBlue had not been blocked by federal regulators in early 2024, the budget carrierâ(TM)s infrastructure, routes, and brand would likely still exist today under a consolidated corporate umbrella. Instead, left independent but financially vulnerable and unable to absorb rising operating costs, Spirit ended up filing for bankruptcy twice before officially ceasing all operations on May 2, 2026, when its reorganization plans collapsed and federal bailout negotiations failed.
This reality highlights the double-edged sword of antitrust intervention: while blocking the merger was intended to protect low-fare competition, it ultimately left Spirit to drown on its own, completely removing its discount seats from the sky. The same thing these people want to happen in another industry.

It's more than just a set RPM. It is also a set power level. An ICE engine is typically the most efficient at a set RPM and 70-80% of maximum power for that RPM.

Then size the engine for roughly highway speed on level terrain. Maybe give it the ability to go higher in RPM - less efficient, but able to handle going up a big hill/mountain if necessary. But ideally the battery would handle that, then charge up on the way down.

In this case, the primary 'advertising' is apparently for apartments using online websites.

One apartment complex cheating and offloading much of the "rent" into "fees" so they can list at a lower price online encourages all of them to do it, making the comparison shopping of the websites practically useless.

Besides this, the NYC rule seems to cover rental agreements, which the FTC rule did not cover, to my knowledge.