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
[–] 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.

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

ok that makes me sick

[–] 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.

[–] 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.