You all remember just a few weeks ago when Sony ripped away a bunch of movies and TV shows people “owned”? This ad is on Amazon. You can’t “own” it on Prime. You can just access it until they lose the license. How can they get away with lying like this?
If they're saying "own" on their advertisements then they should be required to refund you when they eventually have to take it away. I'm pretty sure "ownership" has a legal definition and it's probably not too ambiguous.
It should at least be considered false advertising if they can't guarantee access permanently.
That's the best part
They redefine "own" and "buy" in their TOS
And so do many many other online retailers that sell digital goods
I wonder if that would hold in court. They could simply use "rent" or "lease" in their ads, but they purposely are trying to mislead to imply permanence.
The people who can afford to fight this kind of court case have no interest in doing so.
Don't you have customer protection NGOs in the USA?
We have corporate protections in the USA.
I can't believe you were able to ask that with a straight face
The consumer isn't the last rung on the ladder. We're on the fuckin ground. With footprints on our faces and medical bills to prove it.
Anything holds in court when you have more money than several small nations combined.
Then it's not binding and they're just waiting for the class action. Which will win, but they'll still be richer in the end.
This is modern alchemy trying to turn lead into gold. Just change the meaning of the magic words et voilá you make gold while the other party is robbed blind and can't do anything about it after the fact.
And of course, it's totally legal and totally cool.
Refunding the sale price is still theft. If it was only worth that much to me (zero surplus), then I wouldn't have bothered with the trade in the first place. The only things worth buying are worth more to you than the sale price.
Oh I had never thought of this or come across this concept! That's a really elegant concept. Of course, in a transaction you're putting in more effort than the money. The time it takes you to go through the purchase, the research, the cost of opportunity of that money... meaning those have to be covered in the cost of the transaction, and therefore the goods must be cheaper than the perceived value by those amounts.
You've sent me down a rabbit hole and I thank you for that. Now I'm off to read about economics 🤓
Did you click on it? Maybe it links to a torrent :D
I used to buy movies on Amazon, assuming it worked like Steam does, where if Steam loses the license to sell it, you still have the ability to play it even if Steam isn't allowed to sell it.
Hell I still have access to the stuff I got back when Steam still sold movies (I honestly miss Steam movies...)
When people started telling me their copies of things they owned were no longer usable once Amazon stopped selling it, I stopped buying.
IF BUYING ISN'T OWNING PIRACY ISN'T STEALING!
I am on the belief that once I buy something, let's say Spiderman No Way Home, on streaming services, I am entitled to download it offline from anywhere for my own Jellyfin.
No one, or even biggest corp, can change my view.
Downloading stuff like this for personal use is in fact perfectly legal in many countries
Nobody with enough money has sued... Yet...
I mean, you can "buy" stuff in Amazon Prime Video off service. Unlike Netflix or other platforms, they will let you "buy or rent" streaming movies, which is the same as finding the movie on the Amazon storefront and buying the digital copy instead of a physical copy.
Now, does that mean they won't yank it? Not really. A digital license is a license, not a purchase. Is the word "buy" or "own" inaccurate? I'm hoping not, because like the Sony thing showed, platforms are desperate to not have the courts improvise what rights they owe the buyers on digital purchases.
I'm still buying my movies in 4K BluRay, though. And working on ripping all of them for streaming at home, now that I finally have the space.
A digital license is a license, not a purchase.
Stop repeating copyright cartel propaganda.
That sounds more like what class action lawsuit is supposed to be for.
Ross Scott of Accursed Farms is planning a lawsuit for something similar https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-crew/servers-shutdown-lawsuit
I just do the morally correct thing. Buy it, then pirate it so I really do own it forever. Inconvenient from a data storage perspective but the only simple solution I have on hand.
Or don't buy it, then pirate it.
Depends on what it is. I'll freeboot full priced games by well known companies that I don't want to support but smaller games from studios trying their heart out? I'm a sucker for chucking money at them.
Wouldn't call that piracy.
100%. That's a backup.
Sometimes I do what I call "time travelling" where I pirate first with the intention to buy later when it's cheaper.
I do that too but I call it a "forced demo"
Because they control the FTC and any other regulatory agencies. It's called regulatory capture. The only other way they can be held accountable is through the pay to play court system which is biased towards them because they can drag it out until the other party gives up.
This is the answer.
All fed regulatory agencies are captured at this point.
It should be noted that Amazon was among the first to prove that buying isn't owning a few years ago when a book that many people had legally bought was automatically scrubbed feom devices. The title had been removed from the catalog, and any kindle which held it automatically removed it without the users concent, and they were given amazon store credit in return.
Are people really out here buying a media that can only be viewed through an app? If it's not a file that can be downloaded and viewed elsewhere then I'm definitely not going for it... Who am I kidding? The seas have always been the life for me landlubbers!!
When you click "buy" or "purchase" on a video on Amazon Prime, you're not actually coming into ownership of that movie of TV show. Instead, you're merely paying for a limited license for “on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time", as warned in the very small print on the company's website.
-- GamesRadar
they can get away apparently because of this very small print.
yarr-har-fiddle-dee-dee/ if you love to sail the seeries of tubes
You just can't see the microscopic "for" in "OWN IT ^for NOW"
So you refund me if you take it away?
this is why i still buy cds and dvds
Yep. I still like owning Blu-ray’s for this reason. When I tell people I have a Blu-ray collection they make fun of me.
I definitely do not value having lifetime access to 99.999% of the media I consume enough to have to deal with hoarding physical copies.
"I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further"
Not that I'd actually want to own any DCU movie, but yeah, that's just patently false.
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
💰 Please help cover server costs.
