Funimation End of Services

https://help.funimation.com/hc/en-us/articles/23103586580244-Funimation-End-of-services

by ajdude • 2 years ago

168 114 2 years ago

help.funimation.com

Macha2• 2 years ago

The only reason it existed for the last year was they didn't want to negotiate to move licenses to Crunchyroll, so I suspect the remaining Funimation-but-not-Crunchyroll content is going to just have its licenses left expire rather than move over if they haven't moved it already.

_However_, they're also not bothering to migrate purchased digital copies over, so people are losing access to things they've paid to "own".

What is going to happen to my digital copies?
We understand that you may have concerns about your digital copies from Funimation. These Digital copies available on Funimation were a digital access to the content available on the DVDs or Blu-rays purchased.
Please note that Crunchyroll does not currently support Funimation Digital copies, which means that access to previously available digital copies will not be supported. However, we are continuously working to enhance our content offerings and provide you with an exceptional anime streaming experience. We appreciate your understanding and encourage you to explore the extensive anime library available on Crunchyroll.

Remember that when e.g. Ubisoft wants you to be comfortable not owning things...

ocdtrekkie• 2 years ago

Wow. Ditching digital copies is just a garbage move. Generally Ultraviolet and now Movies Anywhere at least offer some robust persistence between services, but even movies not covered by those have been transferred to another service when someone shuts their streaming service down.

I believe Vudu sells a lot of this content too, so if they really even cared about consumers they likely could've transferred the digital copies there.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF• 2 years ago

I thought the intent was, "We should make the service trustworthy enough that customers are comfortable not owning things"

e.g. Lots of gamers trust Steam. I don't hear of high-profile games going missing from Steam. And unlike a console or streamed game, at least you can back it up and try to crack the DRM in the future. Can't say that about basically any video platform.

incrudible• 2 years ago

In this case you actually did get a physical copy, the digital one was just a bonus. Nothing stopped you from selling the physical copy and keeping the digital one either.

wlesieutre2• 2 years ago

Generally when a game goes missing from Steam you can still play it, they just stop selling new copies due to licensing agreements on things like music expiring.

But The Crew is making news recently for planning to pull the plug on their servers. This will also kill its single-player components because Ubisoft are dicks who made the single-player still require servers.

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-crew-delisted-from-all-digi...

shantara• 2 years ago

The games regularly get pulled from Steam by the publishers, usually when a license for some ingame music expires, but the customers who already own the game typically retain the access to it.

The latest high profile case was the removal of Spec Ops: The Line just last week. Which is especially troubling, because it’s an important part of the gaming history, and it happened with no warning.

jcl• 2 years ago

I think Ubisoft’s intent was more to make customers comfortable with the idea of paying for short-term or ongoing access to content. Their shutdown of online services and DLC for some of their Steam games a few years ago did not exactly inspire confidence.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ubisoft-titles-pulled-from-ste...

laserbeam• 2 years ago

Nope. It simply meant "We like owning things and renting them out indefinitely." It has nothing to do with trust.

somat• 2 years ago

I think a large part of steams success is that they have not messed up... Yet. The other online game marketplaces look at steams success and want their piece of the pie yet forget this critical fact. It takes a long time to trust a company to guard the keys of the digital items you "own". sarcastiquotes because ownership is very weak with these services.

Anecdotal evidence.. myself, It took me 5 years of steam behaving itself before I bought anything on it. I am perhaps not a reference customer. I am a bit paranoid, I really dislike this "half" ownership that online purchases grant you, drm makes me nervous. yet still because steam has remained a stalwart reliable service, it has faded into the background, unobtrusive, and most of my games are on it. I still get a bit sick to my stomach when I think what I will lose when, not if, steam management starts "messing up"

charcircuit• 2 years ago

so people are losing access to things they've paid to "own".

They would still own the physical copy of it. Having the bonus goods that come with the thing you buy not be available forever is nothing new.

JoshTriplett• 2 years ago

Having the bonus goods that come with the thing you buy not be available forever is nothing new.

That doesn't make it OK, that just makes it a long-standing bad thing.

jmward01• 2 years ago

Nothing is a 'bonus' when you buy something. You paid for it, you should get it. I have never pirated a single thing in my life, but I am seriously thinking about doing it now. I have been forced to pay for the same thing many times over because the copy I 'own' doesn't transfer and it stops working. Why is it a crime if I rip a DVD I paid for but not theft if they stop providing a service that was paid for?

dimmke2• 2 years ago

This is one of those issues that I really see both sides of. I think it's unreasonable to expect a company to be able to provide the ability to download content you bought once in perpetuity. Because it costs money, and companies shut down etc...

Where it gets dicey is if the removal of availability of an item means you can no longer consume it even if you already have it downloaded. That's where regulation should come in.

I just don't think it's tenable to have a regulation that says "If you're a company that sells digital goods with copy protection, you must always keep those goods available for download in perpetuity"

caconym_• 2 years ago

Is it a straightforward download? I've never used any of these "digital copy" codes but I always assumed they let you stream it on a closed platform rather than just giving you a DRM-free file you can do whatever with. Seems like this would be way less problematic if they offered a full download for a limited time.

The real digital copy is on the disk itself, for those with an optical drive and a few minutes to search the web for appropriate software...

bsimpson• 2 years ago

It would actually be pretty rad if the rule was "if your thing fails, you need to make DRM free copies available for your users for __ period." Give the soft landing that Google gave for its Stadia controllers.

Hard to enforce though if the company that fails also ceases to exist (and ceases to have servers, etc.).

I wonder how a rule like that would impact contract negotiations.

makeitdouble• 2 years ago

I just don't think it's tenable to have a regulation that says "If you're a company that sells digital goods with copy protection, you must always keep those goods available for download in perpetuity"

Why not ? Companies can remove that copy protection at any point and stop being subjected to that regulation.

It would still need a minimum period to let the user download their contents, but the rule feels straightforward to me.

joshspankit4• 2 years ago

Remember that when e.g. Ubisoft wants you to be comfortable not owning things...

Ubisoft took that profitable tactic from media companies (who have been wildly successful at using it. Who even questions the fact that music is licensed?) who ironically got it from software. I can’t remember who got the idea first, but Microsoft used the licensing model almost exclusively and that model hit the market hard to take away individual rights and give those rights to the companies. I’m sure I don’t need to tell anyone on HN that those long “Click to Agree” documents are almost all licenses but there are people out there that don’t know that there was a time those didn’t exist and tangibly owning things was a core value of western culture.

eslaught• 2 years ago

Music is the perfect counterexample to what you're saying. It's the only remaining digital platform where it's still possible to buy legal, DRM-free copies of digital files, which you can download to your own machine and thus ensure you retain access.

Ebooks, audiobooks, movies, games all work like you say. (Less so with games, at least there are alternatives like GOG. But mainstream games are by and large not available without DRM.) Even podcasts are going that direction. But music, somehow, inexplicably, remains DRM-free even with all the mainstream labels.

koolba• 2 years ago

They should refund all “purchases” that will no longer exist. I bet it’s going to be cheaper than the eventual class action lawsuit.

joshspankit4• 2 years ago

There would only be a lawsuit if the at-purchase license agreement for some reason didn’t cover revoking.

p1mrx• 2 years ago

https://help.funimation.com/hc/en-us/articles/23103586580244...

We understand that you may have concerns about your digital copies from Funimation.

https://theportalwiki.com/wiki/Announcer_voice_lines#Chamber...

The Enrichment Center respects your right to have questions or concerns about this policy.

fxtentacle2• 2 years ago

I think Cory Doctorow nailed the formulation here:

If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing.

Otherwise, if there are no negative consequences for a company deleting everyone's purchases, what will stop them from doing it every year just to boost profits?

cobbal• 2 years ago

It's pithy, and I certainly wish more things were sold instead of licensed, but by this logic anything in a museum is also free for the taking.

b3lvedere3• 2 years ago

You do not own anything someone or something (companies) else has the legal ownership and rights to. This is something way different that distribution rights as well.

They 'may' grant you a license. Depending on the terms and conditions that license may bind you to all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo and stuff. This applies to games, music, movies, books, other forms of media, etcetera.

Why this is such a complex thing? Because companies made it as complex as possible to avoid easy legal battles, taxes and other things related to money. The more complexity, the more time it will cost before someone else finds out there is something wrong. And by that time, the company or the responsible people may be long gone. Hurray for money.

Piracy is not stealing. You do not steal anything. You bypass legal ownership, dsitribution rights and licenses by pirating. Which is illegal and punishable in most location on this happy planet. If they find out. And want to do something about it. Or can do something about it. Complexity is not a patented idea. Many people can play that game.

I do hope in the Star Trek universe they had no licensed copyright system on their transporters. Your freshly beamed you may not be your property anymore. That would make a fun SNL sketch where Picard has to fight the lawyers after beaming to some planet.

austin-cheney• 2 years ago

When it comes digital media if you don’t have it sitting on a hard disk in your physical possession free from DRM you don’t actually own it.

citizenpaul• 2 years ago

Wait until the MBA'S realize that constant spinning off streaming services and shutting them down can be a business strategy for infinite money reselling the same product access has been lost to

Maybe they already have? Probably would be most effective on 5+ year cycle to give people time to forget.

efilife• 2 years ago

Why did they all start to replace "shut down" by "sunset"? It sounds stupid

dgunay• 2 years ago

As with most PR speak, it (on paper) makes it sound better. "Sunsetting" a service brings to mind these things: beauty, a gentle and gradual fade out, and the inevitability of natural phenomenon. Contrast with "shutting down" a service: a cold, calculated, and abrupt decision by a corporation.

I don't think most people actually feel that companies owe it to anyone to keep services up long past their economic feasibility, but maybe somehow someone important felt some definition of bad about the language behind a shutdown announcement and came up with the term.

labster• 2 years ago

Just remember that after a corporation does sunsetting the long, cold, dark night follows.

omoikane• 2 years ago

Some people are very sensitive to certain words.

I remember there was one time during a certain company all hands, where one guy said something along the lines of "employees violating these policies will be terminated." And then the person next to him immediately jumped in and said "fired." There was some puzzled look from the first person.

This happened a few minutes later when the first person said "terminated" again, and the second person again followed up with "fired". The original speaker now understood what's happening: "I meant to say their employment will be terminated, I don't mean we were going to kill them or anything."

I don't think I heard the word terminated used after that.

nicbou3• 2 years ago

This is because you terminate employment, hopefully not people. Services do get shut down. It's the correct term.

As a non-native speaker writing for non-native speakers, I use idioms, expressions and euphemisms very sparsely. They obscure the message and increase the mental burden on users. This is fine when you want to entertain your readers, but not when you want to communicate important information clearly.

nicbou3• 2 years ago

Control group didn't react well to "taken behind the shed".

sph• 2 years ago

In all his wisdom, Orwell imagined Newspeak to be a politically-motivated effort, instead what has apparently become a cultural shift driven by corporate lawyers.

npteljes• 2 years ago

Especially stupid too, since they mean the actual end of the service by it, but sunsetting is the period before the shutdown, not the shutdown itself. So the Funimation sunset is right now.

Aeolun2• 2 years ago

Got to love your page opens a blog post and immediately redirects to ‘this content is not available in your country’.

anonzzzies• 2 years ago

Yep, incredibly lame.

hifikuno• 2 years ago

The thing I find interesting is the fact that Funimation (Sony) bought Crunchyroll [0], but decided to keep Crunchyroll as the main product instead. I guess Crunchyroll had better name recognition?

---

[0] https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/9/21547657/sonys-funimation-...

coolhand2120• 2 years ago

That and several million more subscribers.

hackernewds• 2 years ago

and not initially being a piracy product, like Funimation was

refulgentis• 2 years ago

Can someone ELI15? The possibility of corp speak euphemisms makes it hard to understand the recent developments.

(I know Funimation is an anime studio, I know Crunchyroll is Netflix for anime, and I know there's some recent controversy over Funimation stuff being pulled from Crunchyroll, including past purchases, and I presume it's due to negotiations between the two parties.)

booi• 2 years ago

funimation is more of a licensing and distribution company than an "anime studio"

dylan6042• 2 years ago

This is selling it short though. They hire actors/writers/directors to dub the content in order to do the distribution. They didn't hire 3rd party companies to do it. They did it in house in their studios. They were as much of a studio as a company can get without animating the content themselves.

nicbou3• 2 years ago

Right? I really struggle with corporate announcements because they water down the message until it's incomprehensible.

maronato• 2 years ago

Funimation was also “Netflix for anime”. Sony bought Funimation and then it bought Crunchyroll. Now they are finalizing the “unification” by migrating their remaining customers and shows to Crunchyroll and keeping it as the sole platform.

This “announcement” is describing how to move your account and answering questions current users might have.

At least that’s what I understood. Others can correct me if I’m wrong.

ChrisArchitect• 2 years ago

[dupe]

More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308679

Eric_WVGG• 2 years ago

… so I'm just a dumb country software developer, but my understanding of corporate acquisitions is that the buying party was picking up both their assets and their liabilities.

Why is Sony not obligated to honor the contracts that now-their company signed to? Customers weren't making a deal with Yoshi Funimation, after all, they made a deal with FunimationCorp™, now a subsidiary of Sony™.

noobermin• 2 years ago

The terms are usually written such that one party can unilaterally end the agreement, in this case, the provider.

crooked-v• 2 years ago

Also, companies are allowed to get away with attaching that fine print to large text labeled "Buy" because our legal system has completely given up on words actually meaning things.

Terr_• 2 years ago

Also in cases where the company's being dissolved in bankruptcy, affected consumers will be near the end of the line and likely not get anything.

pixl97• 2 years ago

So, divide your company in to two pieces, pull all digital assets in company A and license them to company B. Have company B sell (license) to the consumer. After product reaches market saturation have company A kill company B. Have company A license to company C and start the cycle all over?

lmm2• 2 years ago

Because our consumer protection agencies have neither the funding nor the mettle to do anything, and voters have let ourselves sleepwalk into this state of affairs.

virtue3• 2 years ago

Actually it's worse than that...

Funimation AQUIRED crunchyroll. Then changed their name. So technically it's still funimation under sony.

KingOfCoders• 2 years ago

"Why should I have Crunchyroll?"

Is it just me? An ad for the "new" service when I might miss the old one, rubs me the wrong way.

_imnothere• 2 years ago

Now I hope all previously purchased users all become pirates just to teach Sony all these big corps a lesson

Suzuran• 2 years ago

Less anime in the world is a net win for humanity.

alexfromapex• 2 years ago

Surprised no one mentioned this yet but I bet they had to set the date on April 2nd because if it was on the 1st people would think it was an April Fools joke.

Funimation End of Services

Related Stories