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.
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?
Did you click on it? Maybe it links to a torrent :D
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.
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 🤓
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!!
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.
How are you digitizing BluRays? I've not found a way yet due to the DRM on those fuckers.
Look into MakeMKV. It's "free" while in beta (in practice you need to input a new license key from their forums occasionally, so inconvenient unless you buy a real license) and can rip Blu-Rays with no issue. For ripping 4K, though, you'll need a drive that supports LibreDrive which bypasses all of the drive's built-in DRM. I personally use an LG BU40N in a Vantec external enclosure.
That sounds more like what class action lawsuit is supposed to be for.
Damn straight. I want my $7.50!
Ross Scott of Accursed Farms is planning a lawsuit for something similar https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-crew/servers-shutdown-lawsuit
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.
This would be illegal in most EU countries.
This SHOULD be illegal in EVERY country.
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 haven't ran into a situation where any of the digital copies of things I bought have been pulled. So I can't speak to what happened with your friends. But I will say that if you have any purchased digital copies of movies, you should at least setup Movies Anywhere and link all accounts you have. It isn't like how Steam will still allow you to download a pulled game. But it does give you copies of things on multiple sources once linked. So if you got something on Amazon, it would also be linked as "purchased" on other services like Vudu, YouTube/Play Movies, Apple, etc.. It won't apply to everything you have got but would likely cover most big name items.
It used to be marked with the old "Ultraviolet" branding, but when that was shutdown the basic underlying service was transferred to Movies Anywhere. Most of the time you can see which things would count because they have the MA logo. Not great for smaller releases and most shows won't be part of it (atm at least). Though some shows might also show up, as I have seen things from HBO and some other ones.
All that being said. You are very much correct about "buying isn't owning" these days. And even when there is something like MA, there are still thousands of movies and shows that will only ever get a digital "release" from torrents/P2P. Sad that some cool shit will never get a real HD re-master for Blu-ray (let alone streaming). I very much feel that studios should have at best a 10 year window to make whatever sales before the masters should be copied to public archives. If the studios won't do it, then there are more than plenty of people out there that would do the job for the love of keeping old media preserved and accessible. Also bullshit when I try to go the "legal" route and find a show on one service in HD but only in SD on others. It is pretty infuriating to see that in some cases I can only get like season 2 of something on say Vudu for example, but season 1 is seemingly exclusive to Amazon. And one is in HD and the other is only SD.
I looked at Movies Anywhere and
I had an Oculus account. I bought games for Oculus. Facebook forced me to link my Facebook account to it. Facebook removed Oculus accounts so it was all under Facebook accounts. Facebook deleted my account. I no longer owned the games I bought. I deleted the Facebook app.
So you refund me if you take it away?
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
In some countries making a private copy isn't legal if copy protections are in place. Even if those copy protections are useless.
"I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further"
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
Probably intentional so they can change the definition of "own"
Not that I'd actually want to own any DCU movie, but yeah, that's just patently false.
"Feel like you own it NOW"
"...for NOW"
🥸 well you see, you own a digital license to watch the movie so long as we have it available, have you read our terms of agreement--
Agreed that this is scummy marketing, though. The only real way to own media (legally) anymore is through physical copies, and even then maybe there's some provision that makes a DVD illegal due to license shenanigans... but no cop's gonna bust down your door for owning an illegal DVD of Aquaman.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWHAHAHAHAHQHAHAHAHAHAHQHQHhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah……………..
You can save up to 77% if you buy now.
you can never save by buying something. I save if I don't buy.
You're playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that "save 77%" is a valid shortening of "save 77% compared to buying at full price" because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. "Save 77% compared to not buying the item" makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn't make you clever.
That said, I agree that "pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to" is dumb.
Out already? Can't be long before Radarr delivers it then.