this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
451 points (97.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53882 readers
704 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

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



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 66 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 7 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The people who can afford to fight this kind of court case have no interest in doing so.

[–] menemen@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Don't you have customer protection NGOs in the USA?

[–] Arcane_Trixster@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

We have corporate protections in the USA.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I can't believe you were able to ask that with a straight face

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We should start a gofundme then to get the funds needed to afford such a fight. Id throw in 100$. Might take a few thousands of me, and a lot of time, but it should start somewhere.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 7 months ago

Or join the EFF which already does great work in this area. They don't always succeed, but I doubt a GoFundMe could do better.

[–] AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] NOOBMASTER@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

ok that makes me sick

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They actually never mention the idea of you owning content in their tos https://www.primevideo.com/help?nodeId=202095490&view-type=content-only

It's "purchased digital content"

(iii) purchase Digital Content for on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time ("Purchased Digital Content")

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which is exactly like physical media. You never owned it you bought a license to view it on that particular disk. But it also had limitations put on it.

[–] anonymouse@lemmings.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's not "exactly like" physical media. The license portion is a similar concept. But the difference is that the variables that determine whether I can keep watching the content whenever I want, in perpetuity, lie solely with me as the person who physically possesses the media. The corporation from which I purchased the license can't unilaterally decide to revoke my access to the content.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Jrockwar@feddit.uk 6 points 7 months ago

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 🤓

[–] lud@lemm.ee -4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Refunding the sale price is still theft.

What did you lose in this theft?

You got back everything you paid and you still got to enjoy the movie.

The way I see it you benefited from this transaction.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Refunding the sale price is still theft.

What did you lose in this theft?

Is there really nothing in your home right now you would be sad if someone took and just gave you the money you paid for it?

Even a digital copy of a movie may not be so easy to replace on the services I have access to.

Stores are not allowed to go home to people and take back the stuff they sold, even if they refund the price. Neither should a company that advertise "pay this price and own this movie" rather than "pay this price and rent it for an indeterminate time".

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is there really nothing in your home right now you would be sad if someone took and just gave you the money you paid for it?

Well of course, but I wouldn't care much about movies or media. Especially if the media is readily available elsewhere which is always the case for movies you "bought" digitally.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Especially if the media is readily available elsewhere which is always the case for movies you "bought" digitally.

Except when they aren't. Especially if located outside the US, it is far from obvious that a given movie is available through another service.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Oh, whoops. I read it as them explicitly telling me to pirate it. Yeah of course they aren't going to let you actually own it. That doesn't come close to making sense.