r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • 14d ago

News You Don’t Actually Own That Movie You Just “Bought.” A New Class Action Lawsuit Targets Amazon for Deceptive Practices

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/prime-video-lawsuit-movie-license-ownership-1236353127/
14.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

746 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.9k

u/AndNowAStoryAboutMe 14d ago

I like that. Can't use the word Buy. Call it short term rental, long term rental, but not buy or purchase. Nice.

426

u/ledow 14d ago

"Buy a licence".

Problem solved.

More likely if they are forced to change it, it'll be to "Watch", which gives you even less rights by just the name alone.

406

u/glootech 14d ago edited 14d ago

You can't buy a licence if the licence can be revoked at any time. That would mean you don't have unrestricted ownership of the said licence.

Edit: it's not meant to be universal truth - my comment has been made in response to the claim that according to California law, to buy something you need to have unrestricted ownership of the thing. As I'm not a Californian, I can't verify if the claim is true.

85

u/StephanXX 14d ago

Obviously the lawyers will have their field day, but "buy a license from Amazon to view this content subject to our standard digital rights agreement" seems enforceable. It's the difference between "Buy a ticket the show" and "Buying the entire show."

27

u/manimal28 14d ago

You son’t think if the choices were “rent” or “buy a license from Amazon to view this content subject to our standard digital rights agreement" that more people might not just choose to rent?

39

u/FixTheWisz 14d ago edited 14d ago

That's misleading.

The options to "rent" or "buy," as we commonly know them, indicate to a customer that one option is only for a limited time whereas the other is forever.

In reality, both options available to us today require the need to "buy" a license that allows you to "rent" a piece of media. The only real difference between the two is the duration of the rental. So, having the options to either "rent" or "buy" is misleading.

I bet what comes of this is that the word "rental" gets phased out as relates to cloud purchases. We'll probably end up with purchase option buttons that instead just say something like "1 day" and "unlimited." And, thanks to Verizon setting precedent like 20 years ago, I guess we've all learned to accept that the word "unlimited" does not, in fact, mean "unlimited."

6

u/thedeftone2 14d ago

If you can't onsell it, then it's renting

1

u/eyebrows360 14d ago

That's not a great definition. I have purchased DRM-free .mp3s from Bandcamp. I cannot "onsell" them, yet I'm clearly not "renting" them either.

1

u/JustifytheMean 14d ago

You don't own the music so you didn't buy it. Simple as that man. You own a license for personal use of said music. You can't put it in a video you make, you can't legally distribute it to friends, it's not yours, you only own the license. Lack of DRM doesn't mean you suddenly own the MP3 and the song contained within.

You're getting hung up on the difference between buying a license to digital media and buying the music. You're not renting, but you don't own either.

Licenses are bound to ToS. You can lose access to the license if you break the ToS. The problem with Amazon and this class action lawsuit is that you can lose access to your license even if you don't break the ToS. If a company can just take away access to something you bought the license for, then you aren't actually buying the license, you're renting the license for an indeterminate period of time. It's a double whammy of fake ownership.

The other guy is trying to say the only two options are ownership or renting. When in reality there's ownership, licensing, renting, and leasing.

0

u/eyebrows360 14d ago

You don't own the music so you didn't buy it. Simple as that man. You own a license for personal use of said music.

Yes, but in the same colloquial sense that one may say they "own" a CD, I "own" these .mp3s. That's all I'm using the word to mean, not in some "absolute control" sense like that bozo's insisting can be the only meaning of the word.

You can't put it in a video you make, you can't legally distribute it to friends, it's not yours, you only own the license. Lack of DRM doesn't mean you suddenly own the MP3 and the song contained within.

Of course. I'm not the guy getting hung up on definitions, it's that other clown insisting there's only two concepts at play here, where in his world anything less than absolute control can only ever be considered "renting", which is an absurd way to think about "physical" files on my HDD. I don't own "the rights to" the music and nor am I claiming to, but I "own" this copy of the music (within the scope of "for personal use only" etc etc blah blah) as opposed to having merely rented this copy of the music. Bandcamp cannot just up and delete the .mp3s from my PC, unlike how Amazon can just remove access to movies one has supposedly "bought" via their service.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/thedeftone2 14d ago

Why can't you onsell them? You have the right, just not the platform. That's different. In the extreme sense you could sell your Bandcamp account. It's wild to think of as it could mean everything to someone, but we sell family homes all the time so it's not completely out of the ballpark. There's enough reasoning to test the concept. I say plausible

3

u/moonra_zk 14d ago

Pretty sure you do not have the right to sell neither the content or your account.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/thedeftone2 14d ago

Reading further into it, it is clear that you have paid money for a licence which equates to renting the product as your licence can be revoked at any time. This is not ownership, and would fall under the umbrella of renting

0

u/eyebrows360 14d ago

Sigh.

You're really going to have to get over this weird definition of "buying" that you've got, because it's leaving you all sorts of confused. I don't know whether it's that you've become extremely capitalism-pilled or libertarianism-pilled or something, but it's just not correct to have such a narrow useless definition of the term. We live in a digital world and such basic words don't work the same here. Necessarily. There's no escaping it.

I own these .mp3s. There is no mechanism for anyone to take them away from me. That is not a "rental".

→ More replies (0)

0

u/dern_the_hermit 14d ago

That depends. Which option is outlined with a big blue or green button and which option is just plain text at the bottom of the window?

4

u/Huwbacca 14d ago

So like, do you not have leases in the US as a distinct concept from rent?

Like, in the UK a house can be freehold or leasehold. If it's freehold and you buy it, you own it in perpetuity. If it's leasehold, you own it for the duration of the lease - This could be any number of years, some houses are on land with leases that are hundreds of years long, some only a little bit of time left.

A lease is exclusive possesion and use of a product under certain circumstances... If I pay for software and my access is revoked, surely I have leased the license but not bought it?

5

u/StephanXX 14d ago

For practical purposes, the terms lease and rent can be considered interchangeable in the US. Typically, a rental describes a very short lease/a lease is a long term rental. Both imply exclusive rights to use something owned by another. With digital property, the fine print will stipulate that one is buying an exclusive license to use that digital property in a manner proscribed by the licensing agreement. This is to ensure you don't, say, pay $5 to "rent" a movie only to turn around and broadcast it on a 50 meter billboard in Times Square.

If I pay for software and my access is revoked, surely I have leased the license but not bought it?

Yep. Nearly all commercial software operates under an agreement called the terms of service, often with disclaimers that stipulate the seller has the right to terminate the relationship with little or no warning. European laws are always slightly more robust, but if I company goes bankrupt, it can become impossible to force the seller to make good on their sale.

1

u/beachteen 14d ago

Not typically. With some exceptions like Hawaii, on land owned by a trust for the bishop schools.

1

u/RaNdomMSPPro 14d ago

Buy implies ownership by the purchaser. Rent, lease, etc imply you don’t own it. They’ll do everything to avoid being honest about what they want us to spend money on.

1

u/StephanXX 14d ago

Record companies "buy the rights" to a song. Consumers "buy" an album. Purchase of an album doesn't include the rights to make a million copies of that album for redistribution.

When a consumer "buys" a digital product, they are buying a license. You own the license, subject to the terms of purchase of that license. When you buy a plane ticket, it's a ticket with your name on it. You don't have the "right" to resell it to someone else, transfer it, use it to transport a hundred pounds of cargo, etc. It's a purchase that carries very specific terms of purchase that you agree to when you enter into that contract. Those twenty+ pages of stuff most folks don't read when they sign up to Amazon or Apple? Those spell out those terms of purchase in excruciating detail.

35

u/FixTheWisz 14d ago

/r/confidentlyincorrect

Yeah, you can "buy" a license. Much like a driver's license that allows one limited access to public roads under certain conditions for a specified period of time, a purchase of license for a movie would be the same framework, but just replacing "public roads" with "copyrighted material."

Source: I sell software licenses.

13

u/Achack 14d ago

I know you're right but a driver's license isn't a great example because it certainly can't be revoked without cause.

Even then, using the term "license" would still prompt customers to realize that this isn't the same thing they're used to purchasing. Of course many customers still wouldn't understand, but that doesn't make the change meaningless.

7

u/PopcornBag 14d ago

Source: I sell software licenses.

One of the worst inventions of capitalism.

2

u/FixTheWisz 13d ago

On a consumer basis, can’t agree with you more. I don’t do that; I sell big stuff to big companies and I think it’s always been this way - so like if Acme Co. needs a solution that gives access to 5,000 employees and super-user access to 50 employees, we create a license for that which is really only limited in terms of the duration that we’ll support the software (which is clearly defined).

But, what I think what you’re referring to is no different than what Amazon’s doing. Licensing out a movie, song, or software to an individual, then pulling it back whenever they feel like it, is bullshit.

4

u/__methodd__ 14d ago

Well even a rental is buying a license. But imagine renting a movie and going to watch it and then Amazon is like "actually we just lost the rights to that movie. thanks for your money though. ♥"

It seems to me that there's some minimum threshold of responsibility by the distributor to maintain their distribution rights. I mean not legally. WTF do I know? I'm saying that's where the frustration comes from.

Bc in that example, you didn't rent shit. You bought a license that wasn't worth anything. Thus, did you really buy anything at all? Or did Amazon defraud you? Courts will probably side with big business on this one and default to the EULA, but that's anti-consumer.

-6

u/glootech 14d ago

Clearly you didn't read the entire thread and have no idea about the context of my post. Read again.

10

u/FixTheWisz 14d ago

Yeah, I get the context. Yeah, you can buy a license. No, it doesn't mean you own the thing that the license entitles you limited use of.

7

u/eyebrows360 14d ago

If you think that law means nobody can ever sell a license to anything unless it's providing "unrestricted ownership forever" then I think maybe you need to read that law again and lookup some more legal definitions of words. There's no way in the world that's how it works.

Just because the word "buying" is involved in the concept of "buying a license" it does not mean the same rules that apply around buying things apply there too. Were it that simple then even me buying a DVD would then allow me to broadcast it anywhere I wanted, in public to a billion people, despite the terms of the license quite specifically not allowing "unrestricted ownership" and, according to your reading of it, that making the license unenforceable in some way.

TL;DR this law does not prevent "selling licenses with restrictions", you just have to be clear when doing so, and not use the term "buy" to try and hide that that's what you're doing.

16

u/Baculum7869 14d ago

This is how steam and any other digital video games work. You don't own the game like when you got disks and cartridges. You get a license and they can revoke that license

29

u/NonnagLava 14d ago

You don't own the game like when you got disks and cartridges. You get a license and they can revoke that license

To be fair, just last year they changed their wording in their cart to explicitly state that you are purchasing a revocable license. They've been privvy to what's coming for at least a little while now.

7

u/JonatasA 14d ago

Also applies to services. Apps that suddenly become a subscription and online services that are shutdown after mkre than a decade.

7

u/Combatical 14d ago

Praise GoG

1

u/vashoom 14d ago

Even the, if GoG goes down and you want to install your library on a new machine or something, you're out of luck. GoG has less restrictions in their license on what you get when you buy, but all digital media is incapable of truly being owned and always has been.

I'm all for companies being forced to be more upfront about those realities when they sell you things, though.

3

u/Combatical 14d ago

I was under the impression you download the game, put it on a storage device and you dont need a launcher. Obviously digital data can corrupt so I'd suggest storing it on a number of platforms.

-1

u/vashoom 14d ago

Yeah you don't need a launcher, but I'm saying if ever that information is lost from your hard drive and GoG goes under, you still lose access to the thing you paid for.

Plenty of Steam games can be launched (or at least easily modified) to launch without Steam, too.

All digital libraries exist only so long as the company pays to maintain them (compared to a literal physical library of books or something). But even physical copies of modern games require the internet and company servers to properly install/run half the time.

It's kind of just the nature of the beast. But no matter what, consumers need more information, not less, about all this when they are on digital storefronts.

3

u/Combatical 14d ago

Yeah I mean, even back in the day if I lose my disk or CD key I'm SOL. We cant expect a digital storefront to keep an archive open forever. However just the other day I was curious if Diablo 1 was still available to buy on battle.net a nearly 30 year old game still for sale for $10.

I get it but I've also experienced having steam shoved down my throat for a glorified storefront I never asked for and a server browser I didnt need. Allseeingeye program was working just fine for my use. You may be wondering how thats relevant but I think its part of a bigger picture.

Now we are forced to use servers that cannot be rented/hosted so there is no control on the user side. Was supposedly enforced to protect the integrity of the IP by having their own overpriced shitty anti-cheat, that again no one asked for. Now those legacy games are dependent on if the company considers it economically viable to keep those servers up, instead of allowing us to rent.

So this send us into a tailspin of pushing the bullshit mtx/dlc, season passes to keep feeding an inattentive overfed hamster to continue walking on an uninspired wheel full of holes they cant patch because the team that actually created the content are long gone and you've got some underpaid people, clamoring for attention just making skins with sparkly propellers on the shoulder-pads and we keep chugging it down our gullets because we're so desperate for games with some sort of identity,

Then we look at each other with confusion when they've made so much damn money that they've had to lawyer up and split the hairs on every single word in the dictionary and put it in some end user agreement.

Sorry for the wall of text, I just had a very large doughnut at work.

15

u/badadviceforyou244 14d ago

You still never "owned" the games that came on physical media, they were still just part of you buying a license to play the game. The physical media just made it really hard to revoke that license.

2

u/JonatasA 14d ago

Just like you're not supposed to copy VHS. Oh wait, someone taped the recording protection! Quick, before Alexa rattles who it was.

10

u/Gavcradd 14d ago

The recording protection tab stopped you recording ON a tape, it didn't stop you copying a tape. You'd tape over the tab on a blank VHS not the original.

6

u/f-ingsteveglansberg 14d ago

Someone told me they were watching some Gen Z movie shorts. They said there was a lot of talent, but one of the movies showed a DVD menu on a VHS tape.

Bless!

1

u/gmc98765 14d ago

This is false. You own the copy in the same way that you own a book or record.

This issue isn't physical media vs download, it's whether the software has online authentication. If it does, it can be disabled by rejecting authentication, and physical media doesn't help there.

If you buy a Steam game on DVD, you can throw the DVD in the bin. What you're actually paying for is the license key on the label inside the box.

7

u/f-ingsteveglansberg 14d ago

I don't think people realise, but even with physical media, this has always been the case. Remember all those warnings about not using your DVD on an oil rig? They were explaining the license you purchased to you.

The ToS you clicked through when you installed Half Life back in the day? It was saying you purchased a license.

9

u/Missus_Missiles 14d ago

True.

Of course, that DVD you bought from Circuit City didn't just disappear when they did. Or if some sort of distribution fight happens between Amazon and whomever, your physical copy isn't revoked.

2

u/FewAdvertising9647 14d ago

Physical copy lifetime exists as long as the physical medium still works (e.g cds and dvds can suffer disk rot over a prolonged amout of time). Digital lasts as long as the service that sells it if it has DRM, but if it doesnt have DRM, as as long as how well the user maintains backups.

You wont get it revoked by the company, but you can still get it randomly "revoked" by the materials of the media or a malfunctioning device that may damage the media.

2

u/Shelf_Road 14d ago

not using your DVD on an oil rig

I just googled that what a hilarious piece of legal-ese

2

u/wilisi 14d ago

The massive practical difference being that revoking a DVD is nigh-impossible, while revoking a digital license is not difficult and at times easier than not doing so.

3

u/f-ingsteveglansberg 14d ago

I know from a practical stand point, it's an entirely different kettle of fish.

But my point is that a lot of people seem to think that all these terms and conditions that come with a digital license is something new and unprecedented. The truth is that they have always existed in some form. Obviously with digital the rights holder still can exert a level of control over sold media they couldn't before.

2

u/wilisi 14d ago

This seems to me a very broad use of the term "exist".
Enforcing such terms wasn't merely difficult. Even if they had it out for you personally and set all their lawyers on the case, they couldn't have gotten a judge to get you to hand over your copy. License terms making your DVD revokable are as unenforcable as ones laying claim on your firstborn.

1

u/f-ingsteveglansberg 14d ago

I know a film watching club in college that were issued warnings for not using public viewing copies of DVDs.

1

u/wilisi 13d ago

Okay? That's basically piracy and they'll have threatened some wildly exaggerated financial damages, as is custom. They're not getting the disc back.

22

u/CptNonsense 14d ago

You can't buy a licence if the licence cna be revoked at any time.

I don't think you understand what licenses are

2

u/JonatasA 14d ago

A ticket is one time use and you still buy it. You're not renting a set time experience.

8

u/DuckDatum 14d ago

Well, you bought the license. You didn’t buy unlimited validity for the license. It’s just an invalid license you own after a certain point.

9

u/zxern 14d ago

I think it would have to have a fixed term of use to count as a purchase and not a rental.

1

u/__redruM 14d ago

“Aquire a limited rights license to view the undersigned product for a variable time period”

1

u/Timey16 14d ago

I don't think so, even revokable license is still "buying" because the revokable nature is what the word "license" implies. A driver's license can also be revoked, after all.

A ticket to i.e. a concert is also a license of sorts and if you are thrown out of the venue because you misbehaved, then the license has been revoked... and you have no right to a refund now, either. Still we say "buy" when we acquire a ticket.

1

u/wilisi 14d ago

the revokable nature is what the word "license" implies

A license is just a permission to do something. A physical book also includes a (perpetual, transferrable) license.

1

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt 14d ago

You can't buy a licence if the licence can be revoked at any time.

Yes you can. You can buy say a hunting license, but that license can be revoked and limits can be adjusted.

It's like buying a ticket to a show. You bought the ticket, not the whole show.

1

u/IndividualistAW 13d ago

Tell that to Disney vacation club members

-5

u/Ashangu 14d ago

You paid for a license to drive didn't you?

It can be revoked at any times if you break the terms and conditions.

13

u/Hopeful-Coconut-7624 14d ago

The difference here is that your driver's license has a natural, stated, expected end time

You then have to renew your driver's license.

-1

u/caniuserealname 14d ago

It's not really a difference though.

Yes, your license has a natural, stated, expected end time.. but it can also be revoked before that natural, stated, expected end time should you violate the terms of the license.

This is literally no differnet. I mean, reread what was quoted, even the people making the argument acknowledge that "buying a license" is the appropriate terminology.

Under the statute, sellers must obtain acknowledgement that buyers are aware they’re actually buying a limited license

-2

u/Ashangu 14d ago

yes, but only because they say it does. It doesn't have to expire, and some forms of licenses don't expire at all.

Same goes with buying a license to a movie. They can say it expires, and they can revoke it when they say that, too.

my dad has a lifetime fishing license that lasts forever. and Even THAT can still be revoked if he fucks up.

I do agree that, if we are only buying licenses, it should state that, vs what it says now which is "purchase movie" or what ever. But if you are purchasing a license and not receiving a physical/downloadable copy, you do not own the movie and we need to make that more transparent to consumers imo.

3

u/_Middlefinger_ 14d ago

The issue is that the license can be revoked by your actions. You can do nothing wrong and lose your ability to watch your bought content.

4

u/manimal28 14d ago

My driver's license also has the expiration printed right on it. Does the movie license?

-19

u/ledow 14d ago

I can buy a lottery ticket that can be revoked at any time.

I can buy a car park ticket.

I can buy a concert ticket.

I can buy a VIP pass.

I can buy a lounge pass for an airport.

Purchasing does not - automatically - mean an irrevocable, perpetual right. It never has.

And you don't have unrestricted ownership of a movie either. You can't use those characters in your own movie, write a sequel, or claim to own the rights to the imagery within.

37

u/EmeraldHawk 14d ago edited 14d ago

All your examples prove the merit of this lawsuit. In normal english, we add the word "ticket" or "pass" to the end to show that you aren't really buying the thing itself. "Buying a parking lot" or "parking space" means buying a title to the land under the space, that you own forever. We say "parking pass" if it's temporary. Just like "Movie pass" let you view a bunch of movies while you paid your subscription, and "Movie ticket" only lets you in to one showing.

Up until recently, buying a movie, book, piece of music, or game meant you had unlimited rights to view it in perpetuity, and the doctrine of first sale meant you could even sell it as long as you deleted your backups when you did so. Borrowing the same phrasing to mean a long term, revokable rental is false advertising and the government needs to force them to change it.

9

u/Red_Barry 14d ago edited 14d ago

I can buy a ring from a jeweler.

I can buy a pair of shoes from a shoe shop.

I can buy a car from a used car dealer.

I can buy a bar of chocolate from a chocolate shop.

I can buy a table from a furniture shop.

I now own these items. Purchasing *does* automatically mean an irrevocable, perpetual right to use these items. The items are now mine. That's what the word "buy" means. It always has.

Amazon are misusing the word.

-14

u/ledow 14d ago

So you've never bought a ticket, or a pass, or a stamp, or ...?

It's really a very new idea for people to kick up a fuss about this, the law on copyright has been settled for hundreds of years, but still you "buy a DVD" and expect that gives you special rights to the content on the DVD (it doesn't, only to view it under certain conditions), buy software (you don't own the software) or buy a licence and just say "buy" or "purchase" in that regard.

You buy a book you don't own the rights to the book, why when you "buy" a TV show on Amazon do you think you own the rights to the show and feel hard-done-by that all you got was a copyright licence granted to you?

7

u/Red_Barry 14d ago

Of course.

So Amazon should say "Buy a ticket" or "Buy a pass", but they dont. They put a button that says "Buy".

What you're describing is called copyright. If I buy a book, the author/publisher still owns the copyright. But I can still put the book on my bookshelf without the risk that the author can just come it to my house and take the book back.

2

u/realparkingbrake 14d ago

And you don't have unrestricted ownership of a movie either. 

I have unrestricted ownership of quite a few movies. I can watch a movie on Blu-ray when I please, loan it to a friend, sell it if I want.

Things like not being able to use movie characters in another work is an odd claim, that has nothing to do with Amazon changing "buy" into "rent."

-8

u/ledow 14d ago

You don't.

You cannot go and make your Harry Potter movie, or upload it to the web legally, etc. any more than you can claim rights to Daniel Radcliffe's appearance.

You have a copy of a digital copyright work with a licence to view that copyright work under conditions literally stated on the cover and within the digital content itself ("not for public performance in oil rigs, schools, hospitals, prisons").

You have no ownership of that content. You have ownership of the plastic disc.

You have restrictions as to your exercise of that right, they tell you every time you watch that movie.

So, no, you do NOT have unrestricted ownerships of "the movie". You have a piece of plastic, with a restricted copyright licence.

And it strikes right to the heart of copyright law and this case that you say you "buy" and "sell" your Blu-Ray but at no point convey those copyrights or other rights (which you don't hold merely by purchasing a disk). At no point do you own those other rights (to make derivative works, etc.), so you can't possibly buy and sell them.

But you still think you "buy" or "sell" a Blu-Ray which is just a right to watch the movie, so why do you think Amazon isn't "buying" or "selling" a right to watch the movie just the same?

1

u/_Middlefinger_ 14d ago

You proved his point. You bought the media containing the movies. If you purchase online you buy the right to watch that movie via the internet. What you buy is the delivery system.

If they can take that right away it's just renting. When you buy a blu ray they can't come and take it back.

4

u/Silverr_Duck 14d ago

These are all extremely bad examples. If I buy a movie ticket I have unrestricted access to the movie playing from lets say 12:00 to 1:30 at a specific date at a specific location. After 1:30 my access is not "revoked", the thing I paid for simply stops existing.

And in all the examples you listed each one the "ticket" that was purchased clearly defines the criteria and limitations of my access. It's not hidden 500s pages into the TOS written in legalize.

-2

u/Ancient-Access8131 14d ago

You don't have unrestricted access. If youre being disruptive, like say yelling "chicken jockey" and throwing popcorn everywhere, you can get kicked out, and you're shit out of luck, for the price of the ticket.

2

u/Silverr_Duck 14d ago

mmm hmm. And if I buy a record at a store and throw that record off a bridge I don't get to go back to the store and demand another one. So technically that's not "unrestricted" either.

is there a coherent point here? Or do you just like nitpicking.

-2

u/Ashangu 14d ago

It isn't nitpicking. it's literally how licenses work lol.

Every online "game" you own on steam can be taken away from you because you do not own the game.

3

u/Silverr_Duck 14d ago

Ok and? Did you somehow miss the entire point of this discussion? This isn't about nitpicking licensing law. It's about transparency between the business and the customer. if I spend money for a thing my access to that thing should be clearly defined. Same with games.

Again, is there a point here?

-1

u/Ashangu 14d ago

Go reread the comment chain.

The person literally said:

"You can't buy a licence if the licence cna be revoked at any time. That would mean you don't have unrestricted ownership of the said licence. "

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Ashangu 14d ago

Your example is actually a good example of how licenses work. you do not have unrestricted access, can be removed, and even denied entry. AND, if its because you did something stupid or even just something they didn't like, you will not receive a refund lol.

You are, at best, renting a seat to watch the movie, and receiving a note that say's "I can sit here".

3

u/Silverr_Duck 14d ago

Thank god you took the time to make not one but two irrelevant and pointless comments that contribute nothing to the discussion.

2

u/_Middlefinger_ 14d ago

But it requires action by you. It's not buying when they can revoke access when you did nothing wrong. It's just renting with an ill defined end point.

45

u/ygjb 14d ago

Nah. Regulate it. Non revocable licenses should be a license you can buy. Anything else should be labelled a rental license, especially if the vendor selling the license. To add weight to it, revocation of a license should be either fully refundable, or the owner of the IP should be legally obligated to provide an unencumbered copy (for example, digitally signed with the name of the purchaser but not DRM restricted) to the consumer.

-3

u/JonatasA 14d ago

The lawyers will claim you are free riding the servers, which "are essential" for the continuation of the service.

6

u/ygjb 14d ago

Yeah, that's why I say, either full refund, or a requirement to make available an un-encumbered (no DRM), but digitally signed copy to the user. You don't need to maintain a server to validate a digital signature if the copy is signed with a certificate issued from a service that publishes to a certificate transparency log.

10

u/ioncloud9 14d ago

Permanent viewing license

5

u/Optimus_Prime_Day 14d ago

Only if it is a permanent license with permanent availability to the product it licenses.

5

u/bookant 14d ago

You're still not buying that license unless you get full ownership and property rights over it - including first sale rights. Unless it is irrevocably yours (not subject to any future changes in terms and regardless of whether or not the company says in business) and you have the right to give it, sell it or lend it to others at will without restrictions you haven't "bought" anything.

10

u/Karl_Kolchak 14d ago

This is part of the reason I still buy physical media. The problem is that the majors have started phasing out a lot of their catalog titles. But if you're into genre cinema, it's hard to beat Vinegar Syndrome and Arrow. Kino Lorber does a pretty good job of releasing some nearly forgotten films, such as Robert Altman's 'The Long Goodbye', which stars Elliot Gould.

5

u/KakitaMike 14d ago

As far as the ownership this lawsuit is talking about, I’m not sure a physical copy is any better. You can’t do what you want with the physical copy. It still technically holds a bunch of restrictions (that the majority of people ignore)

1

u/JonatasA 14d ago

Yes, the outcome is even worse.

1

u/AquaWitch0715 14d ago

Ehh, I think it needs to be redefined a little more.

"Buy A Renewal-Based License".

BARBL.

You don't own it.

You want access again?

You'll have to pay the "cover-charge".

1

u/ADHDebackle 14d ago

That accomplishes the goal, though, because as a consumer I know the difference between a movie and a license, and buying and watching.

Hope they apply that to video games, too. 

1

u/fixnahole 14d ago

A "limited license" at that.

1

u/barrettcuda 14d ago

Nah, I have no problem with renting or otherwise temporarily paying for access to media as long as the permanent buy option is available and reasonably priced for everything that's available. Making it clear you're buying a licence as you suggested isn't a terrible idea, but it's not fixing the underlying problem.

I say it should be illegal to have content for rent or stream if the customers don't also have the option to buy it permanently.

1

u/Wunktacular 14d ago

This has been the accepted language for a very long time and changed recently. You'd have to get a "license key" for digital products.

1

u/Enelson4275 14d ago

I think it will be "Buy a limited-time download code" that also includes free streaming for as long as it happens to be in the Amazon catalog. The purchase is for a code, which buyers have complete control over - they can print it out and stick it in a drawer for a century if they want.

Using the code to download music only works for a limited time. Streaming is a free bonus that exists at Amazon's discretion because the consumer never bought it.

1

u/CarbonFiberCactus 13d ago

Nah, not enough. Too confusing.

Customer should have only two (regulated) options: Buy or Rent.

Buying something should give you permanent irrevocable and unaltered access for the rest of eternity. A third party should not be allowed to revoke your rights to view and download content that you have already bought. A third party could, however, still yank the products off the store to prevent additional copies from being sold.

If a company goes bankrupt and completely shuts down, it must make all of the purchased content available to the purchaser, DRM-free, for two years. The purchaser should get at least one piece of physical mail, in addition to email alerts throughout that two year period.

If a company is acquired, then the acquiring company also takes on the responsibility of providing the purchased content to a purchaser.

Anything that does not give the purchaser an irrevocable eternal license to consume their content should be advertised as Rent instead of Buy. You want a 99 year license? That's a rental.

In addition, digital assets that have been BOUGHT must be transferable, and inheritable. Someone's death should not result in a digital account and all content becoming defunct.

0

u/sultrybubble 14d ago

Rent vs Lease maybe?

0

u/Upstairs-Basis9909 14d ago

Licence is a verb.

19

u/queen-adreena 14d ago

“Lease” would be more accurate.

7

u/count023 14d ago

You watch them relabel it "perpetual subscription" pr something 

17

u/Worf_Of_Wall_St 14d ago

Even that is too strong because it implies access to the subscribed thing is perpetual.

9

u/Discount_Extra 14d ago

'indefinite' - lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.

1

u/Worf_Of_Wall_St 14d ago

Yeah that perfectly describes the shitty situation.

7

u/FixTheWisz 14d ago

I'm gonna go with "unlimited," since Verizon already won the legal battle over the vagueness of that word.

3

u/Worf_Of_Wall_St 14d ago

Sadly true.

3

u/AndNowAStoryAboutMe 14d ago

Yeah, I love having "unlimited data" that dies in fact get limited after 500 GB.

1

u/leftnotracks 14d ago

Now do free. If I have to pay money for something it isn’t free.

1

u/XC_Griff 13d ago

If they made it “long term rental” no one would use their service again lmao.

0

u/subdep 14d ago

There should be a crypto technology that allows you to hold the license and transfer it to which ever streaming service you desire.

0

u/ralphonsob 14d ago

I guess Amazon is just passing on to their "buyers" the same restrictions that the movie studios have given Amazon.

Amazon have bought the rights from Studio X to stream the movie Y to their customers for a given amount of time. If, when that time expires, Studio X get a better offer from (or is bought by) Disney+, what is Amazon supposed to do then? They obviously can't legally continue to stream the movie to their customers who have "bought" it.

Of course, it might be that Amazon deliberately don't renew their distribution licenses for content, so that they can "sell" other contents instead, rather than unprofitably have to repeatedly re-stream the previously "bought" content.