Seeing some questions about how this isn't theft to come into your devices and take your shit. Morally speaking, I think it is theft. Legally speaking, it isn't.
Let's talk about property law for a second. Property law is one of the worst of the laws. It's not as simple as "this is Mine." When something is yours, there is no inherent Yoursness to it. Being "yours" just means that you have the right to do a bunch of stuff with it. Those rights are nearly always limited in some kind of way.
Easy examples: homeowner's associations, where you contract some of your rights away in order to have the privilege to associate with the vile racist past of excluding Black people from accessible housing. (Most people who join HOAs have no real choice in the matter these days, so that's not me condemning people who join, just the HOAs themselves.)
Another example is rental property, where you purchase the right to occupy for a certain period of time. It's yours... but if you engage in certain types of damage, etc., you have to pay someone else about it, and if you don't keep paying, you lose the right.
For these streaming services and digital downloads, the vast majority of them are not "purchases" of the "movie" or "show." They are the purchase of a license allowing you to download/stream and watch the show, on authorized devices, limited to a certain number of copies, on your accounts, through that particular service. You can tell just by how many stupid rules there are and the copy protections that it's not the type of ownership that lets you do what you want.
In fact, you could call it a sub-license, because the service itself has the real license to "sell" those individual mini-licenses.
So if the service loses the license, you no longer have a license to sub-license from. It's like if you were renting -- let's not use an apartment, because the place where you live has some extra legal protections, but let's say you did Frank down the street a solid once and he lets you use his old shed as a crafting and storage space. You might even have a contract that's like "Amy can use Frank's shed as much as she wants forever."
Now let's say Frank defaults on his mortgage and the property sells at auction. Now, Frank doesn't have any rights to the shed, and so any contract he makes giving the shed to you is useless. He can't rent out the shed because it isn't his anymore.
Sony has fulfilled what I'm guessing (without reading all the fine print) is the letter of the contract: as long as they had their license, and you bought your sub-license, you were able to use and view the content. Since their license is gone, so is yours. Under this definition, it would be "theft" to let you continue watching, because no one in the transaction is legally allowed to stream, download, and watch this on those authorized devices through this service.
In the same way, legally speaking, you'd be "stealing" the use and enjoyment of the shed from the new owners if you kept using it for crafting even though Frank doesn't own it anymore.
Of course, the metaphor fails, because sheds are not able to be copied infinitely for essentially no charge whatsoever and subject to artificial constraints intended to protect the designers and builders of the original shed that is the source of the many many copies. The law was made for material items, and so it fails to make sense when confronted with immaterial ownership.
And when I say the law was made to cover material items, I mean property law still has stuff in it from feudalism. That we still actively use. Today. In doing property stuff. In courts of law. The whole paradigm for property law is an awkward pasted-together facade of different frameworks of rights, just like all the rest of our law.
Disclaimer: I kicked ass in property law in law school but that was literally a dozen years ago and I haven't brushed up on it since the bar exam.
