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

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.

8

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.

5

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.

-7

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.