Class Action Lawsuit Targets Movie Ownership (hollywoodreporter.com) 111
Amazon is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it misleads customers by advertising digital movies and TV shows as "purchases," when in reality buyers only receive revocable licenses that can disappear if Amazon loses distribution rights. From the Hollywood Reporter: On Friday, a proposed class action was filed in Washington federal court against Amazon over a "bait and switch" in which the company allegedly misleads consumers into believing they've purchased content when they're only getting a license to watch, which can be revoked at any time. [...] The lawsuit accuses Amazon, which didn't respond to a request for comment, of misrepresenting the nature of movie and TV transactions during the purchase process. On its website and platform, the company tells consumers they can "buy" a movie. But hidden in a footnote on the confirmation page is fine print that says, "You receive a license to the video and you agree to our terms," the complaint says.
The issue is already before a court. In a 2020 lawsuit alleging unfair competition and false advertising over the practice, Amazon maintained that its use of the word "buy" for digital content isn't deceptive because consumers understand their purchases are subject to licenses. Quoting Webster's Dictionary, it said that the term means "rights to the use or services of payment" rather than perpetual ownership and that its disclosures properly warn people that they may lose access. The court ultimately rebuffed Amazon's bid to dismiss the lawsuit outside of a claim alleging a violation of Washington's unjust enrichment law.
The issue is already before a court. In a 2020 lawsuit alleging unfair competition and false advertising over the practice, Amazon maintained that its use of the word "buy" for digital content isn't deceptive because consumers understand their purchases are subject to licenses. Quoting Webster's Dictionary, it said that the term means "rights to the use or services of payment" rather than perpetual ownership and that its disclosures properly warn people that they may lose access. The court ultimately rebuffed Amazon's bid to dismiss the lawsuit outside of a claim alleging a violation of Washington's unjust enrichment law.
Buy = mine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How this was ever acceptable is somewhat beyond me. I'm amazed the Europeans didn't kick up a stink about it - my suspicion is the "general populous" didn't really understand what they were getting into, so it never got pushed up the priority list. Amazon have been generally pretty good at holding on to their catalogue, so 'bought' stuff hasn't disappeared too much for most people (or not so they'd notice, I guess). Even still, I'm amazed it's not been in the news "I bought XYZ movie, and now it's gone!" ty
Re:Buy = mine (Score:5, Interesting)
Its really a case of someone getting the issue before regulators. They've got a lot on their plate.
But yeah, the legalities are obviously off. Amazon will stamp their feet and complain that "Hey its in the contract you signed" , but they are expecting you not to realise tht the "piece of paper" is not the contract, its just a record of the contract. The contract is what the two sides agreed on, and its important that this means what they two sides *think* they agreed on. While amazon *can* put "you agree that your first born heirs soul belongs to amazon" in there, in latin lawyerese, but a judge is gonna say "Hang on, thats not what the customer understood when they clicked the button that said "We totally dont want your firstborn heir!". Judges kinda hate fineprint. The reality is, the usual test is what "a reasonable person" would understand. And I think its pretty fucking stretching it to assume most people would see a "buy it!" button and thinkthebutton doesnt means "buy it!".
Companies have been raked over the coals before for this stuff. Repeatedly. But it really needs the regulators to get on board and say "Hey, honor the fucking agreement you made with the customer or refund the goddamn money" *or we'll force you to*.
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue is the perverse IP laws. This crap happens because "someone" (looking at you movie studios) licenses the IP to Amazon and they have a stranglehold.
Something similar went on back in the 3 meter dish days... Then the satellite feeds were encrypted.
Those selling satellite systems blamed the cable companies.
It was the studios then and the studios now.
Back in the 20s and 30s, the studios owned movie houses and you could only see Fox movies in Fox movie houses etc.
If you go to the movies now and c
Re: Buy = mine (Score:2)
Games can also suffer this, when the license to an IP expires and they are no longer able to provide it on a games store. Iâ(TM)m not sure that have gone as far a preventing you redownloading a purchase though?
Re: (Score:2)
it's all perverse IP laws
Re: (Score:2)
But it really needs the regulators to get on board and say "Hey, honor the fucking agreement you made with the customer or refund the goddamn money" *or we'll force you to*.
That seems to be part of the problem - that all they have to do is refund the money for that purchase. I don't know how many titles they have pulled, but it can't have been that many (The book 1984 is the only thing that comes to mind, but I know there are others). Point is, it's worth the cost to them to keep the interface simple. You just "buy" it, and if "it" ever goes away AND enough people get upset/sue, then they'll just issue some refunds.
Amazon may even be able to recoup that cost from whomever lice
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not in the US though, or only in limited circumstances. Otherwise the timeshare sales from major companies wouldn't keep doing what they do. Almost no one knows what they bought, and thinks they bought something else, yet they can't get a court to void the written contract.
Re: (Score:2)
There is probably language deep in a click through agreement that every media "purchase" sold by Amazon is actually a license.
Re: Buy = mine (Score:2)
EULA's don't override basic truth in advertising. At least not in most jurisdictions, and certainly not in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, it is ridiculous for any company to claim buy would not mean: (paraphrased): "You're given something to keep in a usable form.", for example a V
If you buy a movie, should be able to download it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... Not sure why anyone would "buy" a movie under these conditions. ...
Not to bolster Amazon's claim, but I'm aware of the nature of the sale (though I won't say it's OK). When Amazon pulled some books that users had purchased, and deleted them from user devices, ironically including the book 1984 [^1], I *think* users eventually got their money back and Amazon tried to claim they'd never do it again (not that I trust that part). So I expect that any movie purchases through Amazon are likely to stay around for a long while and, if they do get yanked, I'll probably get my mone
Re: (Score:3)
I remember it as "Animal Farm" though "1984" was probably in there too (My memory is a little fuzzy on the matter, It was like 16 years ago). Amazon went as far as ripping it out of people's Kindles.
It didn't even affect me, but it did put a period on the idea of "buying" anything digital like that. The only digital content I buy is something I can download without "DRM" and keep on my own storage. My kids and some family members think I'm weird and a data hoarder, but I've never lost a purchase.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider it an extended rental, if that helps you
Then it should be advertised as such.
Re:If you buy a movie, should be able to download (Score:5, Interesting)
That way you never lose ownership ! Should be considered the same as when buy a movie on DVD. Not sure why anyone would "buy" a movie under these conditions. It's as bad as buying an online line game......
It's worse for games now, even single player games are coming with always online activation.
Consumer laws need to change to stamp this out before it becomes too abusive.
Re: (Score:1)
> Consumer laws need to change to stamp this out before it becomes too abusive.
the law already makes a difference between buy and rent AFAIK
Re: (Score:2)
I do not understand why the licensing deal does not work the same way with movies and books.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For now.
You're assuming all companies are equally shitty. Blizzard is a good example, but it's not universal. I have a coutnerexample: Starcontrol - before launch an IP lawsuit resulted in the game getting completely pulled from Steam, store down, listing removed. I pre-ordered the game before this. After launch despite it being not available on Steam in any form I was able to download it and play it without problem.
Not every game has activation checks, not every publisher is a dick. There's an entire world of game
Re: (Score:2)
As far a I can tell, with most games, even if the storefront is not able to sell new licenses, the user can still download the game as many times as he wants. I could theoretically go and download and play Forza Horizon 2 if I want to, as it is in my library. There are exceptions, though. Just check The Crew.
I do not understand why the licensing deal does not work the same way with movies and books.
That's not the issue.
The activation is done completely outside the store's control. Mostly by Denuvo and if they stop activating it you can download it as much as you like but you can't play it (well, not without a crack).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why last year Steam had changed their license terms because they got sued for purchases as well.
The only store that didn't do anything was GoG because they were DRM free so you could always use their offline in
Re: (Score:2)
That's why last year Steam had changed their license terms because they got sued for purchases as well.
Did they get sued for material damages or just because someone didn't like words? I don't know of any games Steam has actually prevented from being downloaded by people who have made purchases, in fact I have plenty of examples (some first hand) of games that have been removed from the store for IP related reasons that are none the less still available for my download because I purchased them. They have historically positioned themselves as the good guy in the industry in this regard, have they changed?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about digital game downloads or games that require you to always be online?
Because the licenses for digital games almost never get revoked. Usually that only happens when a publisher is forced to recall a game.
If you have a license for a digital game, you can still re-download from the respective online store it even if the game gets delisted and is no longer for sale.
Always online games are worse as it affects both digital and physical copies. Especially for single player games that unn
Re: (Score:2)
You can't by DRM'd stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
And it is like this with e.g. music software. If I 'buy a license' for Reaper (good IMO), you get a file that unlocks it without online activation. If I 'buy a license' for Bitwig, and Bitwig's activation servers stop playing ball, I lose my access to software I've paid for. Arguably if I buy something with iLok protection, it is up to me to protect the physical device if my licenses are stored on it. But that sucks too. But in general, if something requires online activation, and the activation servers are
Re: (Score:3)
As a fellow licensee of Reaper and plenty of VSTs, I knowf there are two types of "expirations". One is when your subscription runs out. The other is technical obsolescence. While your purchased perpetual license is still valid, you might find yourself needing to preserve an outdated, unsupported OS and hosting platform to keep things running.
I love perpetual licenses, and "lifetime" licenses. But I know when I buy them that there's still an end date. It's "someday". And a company that goes hard on lifetime
Also related to videogames like the Crew (Score:2)
See Stop Killing Games campaign, but this exact same thing goes for videogames too. If you are tied to some remote server that goes away, game dies even for single player.
Remember how original Xbox One had the initial ideas about preventing game sharing? It only got rolled back because of the noise that caused (and the PS4 "how to share a game" ad), but that's where things are going.
At least the European citizens initiative seems to be going through so some regulation might be forthcoming...
Purchased a license (Score:1)
Laugh at the lawyers, before fining them $50K each to deter further abuses of court resources.
DVDs are better (Score:2, Insightful)
Like books, once you own a DVD it's yours. No one can take it away, alter it, or prevent you from watching when you want. It's always yours.
If these people are really that short sighted not to understand a digital stream of data coming from someone else is not the same as owning a physical copy, one can only imagine what else their life is like.
Re:DVDs are better (Score:4, Interesting)
In that regard, yes, physical media is better. But there are tradeoffs. Cross-device compatibility comes to mind. You need to haul around a physical player to watch the physical media. Of course you can rip the media and transcode it... but that is less convenient.
I have owned some movies on four formats. I donated hundreds of old school dvds to Goodwill when streaming services offered them, because in all instances the streaming version was near Blu Ray in quality. My library was upgraded for peanuts. The cycle repeated with Blu Ray to HD streaming.
But... we are talking about digital purchases. The value of access to vast libraries for a monthly subscription is astronomical. Easily the best media entertainment bang for our buck that has ever existed. But individual movies, bought for over $10 each for a temporary revocable license? That is not nearly as good a deal.
While I have gladly relinquished my need for physical ownership, I won't buy a release under those conditions. I'll wait until it hits my bundle, thanks.
There's a freedom to giving up the need to own experience. If the thing you'd like to watch stops being available, well... watch something else. And probably be richer for it. The older I get, the less likely I am to rewatch anything. The number of films I'll see again is probably down to a dozen or so. I confirmed that by ripping 300 of my Blu rays to full uncompressed files on my NAS, and then realizing it had been more than a year since I watched any of them.
And my shelves are tastefully free of tacky movie boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can rip the media and transcode it... but that is less convenient.
That's illegal in the US as well btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh... the ripping CD argument.
It is legal to make an "archival" copy of a CD or DVD (or Blu-Ray, if you can) for personal use, I would think transcoding for your phone would fall under that being you aren't sharing the resultant file (or files if it's a 1:1 copy).
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the DMCA. The circumvention of DRM is illegal in the US and ripping most commercial Blu-rays requires that.
It's stupid and I don't think it should be the case but it's our reality.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but... if they don't know about it (you post someplace that you ripped all your Blu-Rays), how can they come after you?
I still would think that the 'copy for personal, non-commercial use' would apply.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but... if they don't know about it (you post someplace that you ripped all your Blu-Rays), how can they come after you?
I still would think that the 'copy for personal, non-commercial use' would apply.
Sure but some folks prefer not to do things that are illegal. I don't have a problem with this when the rules are so blatantly stupid but lots of folks would.
Re: (Score:2)
As to whether anyone could ever know, I think that is part of what makes it so stupid. Any law impossible to enforce should never be enacted. BUT who is to say that the media companies, the government, and Apple/Microsoft won't all strike a deal someday to scan all
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA made circumventing DRM illegal. Guess what is required to rip a commercial Blu-ray.
Re: (Score:2)
In that regard, yes, physical media is better. But there are tradeoffs. Cross-device compatibility comes to mind. You need to haul around a physical player to watch the physical media. Of course you can rip the media and transcode it... but that is less convenient.
How in the blue hell is putting a ripped copy on a media server "less convenient" than a disc drive? Pick decent codecs in a non-ancient format and it will run on any modern system.
But... we are talking about digital purchases. The value of access to vast libraries for a monthly subscription is astronomical. Easily the best media entertainment bang for our buck that has ever existed.
Ah yes, the halcyon days of early Netflix, when you could logon to one service and see basically everything that's available. I remember those days too, but they are long gone, my friend. Now it's "logon to a service and hope they have whatever it is you're looking for", at $13+ per month, each.
While I have gladly relinquished my need for physical ownership, I won't buy a release under those conditions. I'll wait until it hits my bundle, thanks.
You're going to wait a long time on
Re: (Score:2)
How in the blue hell is putting a ripped copy on a media server "less convenient" than a disc drive? Pick decent codecs in a non-ancient format and it will run on any modern system.
Because ripping the master, setting up the media server, and making it available remotely is non-trivial. That's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ripping the master, setting up the media server, and making it available remotely is non-trivial. That's why.
The first time, sure. If one is dedicated to maintaining their own library, then one would be very well served to look into ways to make "ripping and transcoding" trivial. There are several out there, from automated scripts to full-on GUI programs. Yeah, sure, using a program is 'non-trivial', but hardly a barrier.
As for the media server, again there are tons of options. Lots of people use Plex, but for those who want a "private" or "selfhosted" one, Jellyfin has been doing quite well. Set it up once and go
Re: (Score:2)
Try to put yourself in the shoes of the typical consumer of media. The one that wants to watch the movie, but doesn't know or care about codecs, doesn't want to buy hardware to run a NAS and a plex box, and really doesn't want to fiddle with blu ray firmware to permit the ripping of content to mkv.
The things you are putting in front of watching the movie are not reasonable for most consumers.
You question was how setting up the server was less convenient than sharing a disk drive. That wasn't actually what I
Re: (Score:2)
Try to put yourself in the shoes of the typical consumer of media. The one that wants to watch the movie, but doesn't know or care about codecs, doesn't want to buy hardware to run a NAS and a plex box, and really doesn't want to fiddle with blu ray firmware to permit the ripping of content to mkv.
Why on this forum would I want to do that?
The things you are putting in front of watching the movie are not reasonable for most consumers.
Most consumers can't be bothered to even pick the movie they want. What I initially responded to is not even reasonable for "most consumers" anymore: maintaining a physical media collection.
You question was how setting up the server was less convenient than sharing a disk drive. That wasn't actually what I meant was inconvenient. I meant that the ripping and transcoding was less convenient that having the streaming license. Sorry for the ambiguity.
True, it is, but if just "having the streaming license" was enough, this entire article would never have been written, let alone discussed on Slashdot, so your assertion here, while factually true, is a red herring. Thanks though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care for it, why are you lot so bent on denouncing anyone else's concerns? Fans who enjoy the work rightfully complain when they can no-longer watch it, and all you have to say is "watch something else." If that's the level of attachment you have for any of this, fine, but don't shoot down others because you're an old fart without a care about what's left behind for future generations.
The sin of convenience is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to try to pick apart your essay. Tpits too much. But I stopped after you got your basic assumption about who I am wrong. I have been a musician for 45 years, only briefly professional and never profitable, but always making music. And my collection of music back to the 30s should put to rest my thoughts on AI.
But constructed a whole facade to assign to me just so you could knock it down. Good for you, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a freedom to giving up the need to own experience. If the thing you'd like to watch stops being available, well... watch something else. And probably be richer for it.
On an individual level, you can make your own decisions. From a cultural level... hell, no. There is no freedom in letting other people make all your decisions for you. Maybe you like living in a disposable society, but not everyone feels the same.
The number of films I'll see again is probably down to a dozen or so.
Yeah, but which dozen? It's not that everything is important and worth preserving, but today you may not realize how important something will be to you in the future. At the rate things are going, we are moving towards a society with 0% ownership of everythin
Re: (Score:3)
While that is technically correct ("the best kind...") it's legally incorrect.
DVDs use DRM. So, at any time, the copyright holder can revoke your authorization to watch them, even if there's no technical means to prevent you. (That's assuming they ever granted authorization to watch them in the first place, which is actually pretty unclear. Nowhere on a DVD or its case
Re: (Score:2)
DVDs use DRM? Then, how do they work on an offline DVD player?
They're weakly encrypted with an easily bypassed key, which was leaked shortly after they came out. They fall under the DMCA, that's it. Although, you can make archival copies of your whole collection for personal use (if you've got a pallet of blanks laying around), and I would think transcoding a movie to an MPEG or whatever for personal use on your phone. Your DVD player and computer already have that decryption key on them to be able to p
Re: (Score:2)
DVDs use DRM?
Yes.
Then, how do they work on an offline DVD player?
The DRM is pretty shit.
They're weakly encrypted with an easily bypassed key, which was leaked shortly after they came out.
The key wasn't leaked, the encryption was flawed and it was cracked. But weak encryption is still a copy prevention mechanism even if it's really shit.
The law about not circumventing doesn't have a get-out clause for shoddy implementations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they use DRM. It's described here [wikipedia.org] .. though the rest of your post suggests you already knew the basics.
And yes, you can play, transcode, backup, etc the data. You're right about that. But unfortunately, you're also right about this:
And that's what causes many of the activities you describe, to be illegal unless you get authorization from the copyright holder.
I point this out not because I'm some kind of L
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong... DRM means authenticating through a server (someplace), correct? A DRM'ed MP3, for example, can't be played without a server to approve it (or the key stored locally for limited offline usage on that one device.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOf... [reddit.com]
You are right, and I was wrong, about it being leaked... a few geeks got together and cracked it.
The key resides on the standalone player itself, or in the program that plays it back on your computer. Even if the key was encoded into the en
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA [cornell.edu] defines a "technological measure which limits access" (what we informally refer to as "DRM") in 1201(a)(3)(b) as
Authenticating through a server is one way to implement D
Re: (Score:2)
Nero is legal, DVD Shrink is legal, IMGBurn and all those are legal to post on the general internet, even if they have the capability to remove the CSS-protection.
It's what the user does with it that may or may not be illegal. Of course, in court, it'd depend on the judge and how whoever interprets 'Fair Use' and 'personal use".
From Google's AI thing:
"The legality of copying a DVD for personal use is complex and varies by jurisdiction. Here are some legal grounds to consider:
-Fair Use: Under the Fair Use d
We need a new word (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not defending Amazon (or anyone else that can revoke access to digital content when the licenses change or the servers get shut down - I'm looking at you Nintendo!). However, it seems to me that we need a new word to describe this type of transaction. It certainly is NOT "buying" the movie, which implies ownership in perpetuity. On the other hand, it isn't "rental", because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time. "Rental" implies that it will be returned to the owner after a defined period of time.
It just sounds like we are long past the time where we need a new word to describe this middle ground of "more than a rental" but "not as permanent as outright ownership" for digital content. That will be far, far, far easier than getting Amazon (and all the other players in this space) to not take advantage of us and a word like this would add an element of "truth in advertising".
Re:We need a new word (Score:5, Interesting)
They could call it a long-period rental. Imagine having to put that on the button.
We don't really need another word. Force them to call it rent if they reserve the right to yank it back, so that it's clear. If they don't like it, they can offer better terms, and then they can put "buy" on the button.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a long term rental. Just with an unspecified return date long into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a long-period rental, paid up front but it must come with a guarantee of a prorated refund in case the title gets yanked before the rental period expires.
Re: (Score:2)
Force them to call it rent if they reserve the right to yank it back
I think a long-term rental is called "leash" for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is an example of the kind of comment I wish I had written myself. A+, would read again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are existing words. "Unlock", for example, would serve in this scenario: it implies gaining access with no guarantee that the access is permanent.
Re:We need a new word (Score:5, Insightful)
-- because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time.
Here's the problem. It isn't just a word, it's the fact that the seller wants the buyer to assume that the period is "forever". In many cases, the actual period can't even be determined at the time of sale. It would have to be changed to something like "You are purchasing the right to view this media item until we decide to stop paying royalties for it. Also, you need to keep paying a monthly fee, or you will then lose access to anything purchased through this service. We make no guarantees that this period will even be long enough for you to finish watching it, but it may end up being for your entire lifetime. We also make no guarantees that the membership fee will remain the same price, or even that membership will be available. Good luck!"
Once the proper words are filled in, it will be obvious that the consumer isn't even aware what they are paying for... and that is worthy of a class action suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding lifetimes, I once got a VPN subscription for their lifetime plan which wasn't really, but they at least were explicit by showing prominently on the payment page that by that word they meant 7 years.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not defending Amazon (or anyone else that can revoke access to digital content when the licenses change or the servers get shut down - I'm looking at you Nintendo!). However, it seems to me that we need a new word to describe this type of transaction. It certainly is NOT "buying" the movie, which implies ownership in perpetuity. On the other hand, it isn't "rental", because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time. "Rental" implies that it will be returned to the owner after a defined period of time.
It just sounds like we are long past the time where we need a new word to describe this middle ground of "more than a rental" but "not as permanent as outright ownership" for digital content. That will be far, far, far easier than getting Amazon (and all the other players in this space) to not take advantage of us and a word like this would add an element of "truth in advertising".
We don't need a new word, we've got plenty for when you have paid for a product and don't receive ownership. Rent, lease, hire... but the one you're looking for here is "license".
However "license it today" doesn't sound good on ads and might actually make even the dumbest reality TV junkie think "hey, why am I paying hard earned money for something I don't own".
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly Amazon doesn't want to use the word License, because in order to imply something akin to "buy", they would have to sell a perpetual license and Amazon doesn't want to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
It should say "buy a temporary licence, minimum period X years". Okay the button will be huge, but those are the two things that the consumer needs to know. It's a licence that can and will be revoked, and there is a minimum of X years on it that causes an automatic refund if not met.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "license", with an asterisk. You buy a license to watch, and the asterisk explains that this license is valid as long as Amazon can legally provision this movie.
No one would buy under those conditions, because it makes it clear that the license could be revoked tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was trying to sell some fake patents to Harcourt Fenton Mudd's mother, and she reminded me that unless I presented a fraudulent offer, I might not make a sale to her at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the days when people left their houses to see movies, they purchased a "ticket" that gave them the right to view the picture once.
You're still buying a ticket, though the number of viewings is undefined.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, Apple solved this problem a decade ago with App Store, I don't think we need an exotic solution here.
Re: (Score:2)
When renting an apartment or house, aren't we using the word "rental" in exactly the same way? I don't see how the movie situation is "more than a rental."
Re: (Score:3)
Except when you rent an apartment, they owner isn't using the term "buy" when advertising the rental.
Re: (Score:2)
Why use a new word rather than the word that exists precisely for this practice: "Licence"
Re: (Score:2)
"It works until it doesn't" is not a rental. A rental should specify have a very specific access period.
A new word to describe this doesn't really help. I consider it to be downright unethical for companies to offer a service and reserve the right to cut you off at any time for any reason with no recourse or legal liability. This is now standard practice in the software industry, but should NEVER have been a thing in the first place.
You own nothing online (Score:2)
You have no rights and no ability to change anything. You are the digital equivalent of a serf, and your owner can do anything they like. Get used to it. The only value you have is what income you can create for someone else.
No Amazon, you have not properly warned everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll just pirate next time.
Physical Copies rule (Score:1)
That's why, when I buy some sort of media, I have a physical copy of it somewhere that Amazon doesn't know about. MP3 file on my hard disk, vinyl record on the shelf, DVD, CD, paper book. Then it doesn't matter if Amazon loses its license to carry it, I will still have it. I can watch it as many times as I want, jump up-and-down on it, use it as a coaster, give it to my friend, all because I actually purchased it.
Sometimes I'll rent things. Some show I only want to see once or something that doesn't make s
Have they looked at their computer EULA lately (Score:2)
LoB
You agree to my terms (Score:5, Funny)
I just wanted to remind everyone: you agree to my terms.
I'm told that a few of you supposedly didn't realize that you agree to my terms, so I'm just reminding you.
Yes, it's true that Amazon is lying, but (Score:2)
Well informed customers know that Amazon defines the word "buy" to mean "rent"
Yes, liars deserve to be punished, but the suit won't fix the problem, it will only make the lawyers rich
It's a weird perversion of Communism (Score:3)
Much or the corporate world is trying to push us into a weird perversion of communism. It has all the downsides of regular Communism but in addition you don't even theoretically own things due to being part of the collective society, only corporations actually own things. It's a wealthy exclusive club and you ain't in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look things up. words meanings have been destroyed like right out the important part of 1984. It is not communism.
We really need real communists around so people can see what they actually are - maybe then we'd not ... nah, internet and social media have made people so ignorant and full of misinformation they'd think the world is flat.
Anyhow look up these terms from a decent source and learn what they are enough to generally apply them. They are broad and not super specific so their application is can get
Re: (Score:2)
I am well aware of what actual Communism is, that's why I know this is a perversion. I even know the differences between what might be broadly called Communism and Socialism. Yes, words have meanings. Sometimes people want to be hyper-specific so we don't realize how much their proposal resembles something else. Sometimes they want to be overly broad to establish a false sense of similarity. Sometimes people use words like 'perversion' to call that out when they see it.
All digital movie companies do this (Score:2)
I need to contact the plaintiffs (Score:2)
Can we talk about "buying" ebooks from Amazon?
Tried to warn them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't always buy a DVD or Blu Ray. Sometimes paying for streaming on Amazon is the only option available.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to dust down the VCR in the cupboard then.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're going to justify Amazon lying by claiming they can?
What a fucking asshole you are. You're why we can't have nice things.
Re:Just by a DVD if youre that bothered. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Set up an online media library service.
2) Get people to sign up for an auto-renewing annual subscription of $120 to buy access to your library.
3) 20 days in, after you've locked in enough subscriptions, delete all the content in the library except a Flash animation loop of BadgerBadgerBadger, bringing your costs close to $0.00 and your profit close to 100%.
4) Count benjamins while watching internet warriors defend your business practices and argue that product pump-and-dump is the customer's fault for not being a smarty like said internet warriors feel they are.
5) PROFIT!!!
Re: (Score:2)
1) Borrow a meme punchline.
2) Significantly change the meme structure in order to make the conceptual point more explicit.
3) ???
4) The conceptual point is more explicit.
5) Memes, by definition, are constructs which evolve to fit cases which ensure they propagate.
6) There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his
7) Prophet!
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with functioning braincell knows that nothing online is permanent.
No, what anyone with a functioning braincell knows is that "buy" means ownership. Few people buying these movies are aware of the licensing happening behind the scenes by the people who sold them the movie that could invalidate their purchase in a moment.