Amazon court argument : you do not own your Prime Video purchases ; what is bought is an on-demand viewing licence

[Delicieuxz]

5 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Though it seems it's like that even for digital versions of games (and sometimes even physical copies). Like many games these days are completely online. It's only a matter of time the developer is just going to pull the plug on the game servers and all of a sudden, that 60 dollar game + 100s worth of expansions you've paid for is completely inaccessible.

In the past, Valve said they would offer people the ability to download and unlock their purchased games should their Steam service ever shut-down.

 

 

 

But Epic Games and GoG have the right idea, with their proposal of a Universal Ownership system where all a person's owned digital products are registered to a universal ledger, allowing a person to download their digital goods from any service.

 

 

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

In the past, Valve said they would offer people the ability to download and unlock their purchased games should their Steam service ever shut-down.

This is different. The Destiny franchise does not have any local capabilities. It has to be online. You can download the game files all you want, but they won't do anything. You cannot access any of the content without connection with Destiny servers. And once Bungie, the developer, pulls the plug on those servers. You're stuffed. The game will not launch and there's nothing you can do with it. You'll still have the game in your library, but it's useless. 

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, Velcade said:

 

Pretty straight forward.

Not exactly. It says "availability of purchased digital content". If people purchased that digital content, then they own that digital content. Even if the availability of the content through Amazon goes away, they still own what they purchased. The legal definition of Purchase means that a person becomes the owner of whatever is purchased.

 

https://thelawdictionary.org/purchase/

Quote

The word “purchase” is used in law in contradistinction to “descent,” and means any other mode of acquiring real property than by the common course of in- heritance. But it is also much used in its more restricted vernacular sense, (that of buying for a sum of money,) especially in modern law literature; and this is universally its application to the case of chattels.

 

So, by Amazon stating "Availability of Purchased Digital Content", they have confirmed from the outset that people do own the content which they've bought through Amazon. And so, in that part of their Terms of Service, Amazon affirm three times over that people own the digital products they purchase through Amazon's service.

 

That's the case right there, and that's what the plaintiff should be pointing-out to the court.

 

It could be that Amazon may not be liable should the purchased content become unavailable for a variety of reasons. But in such a case the fact remains that people own whatever they've purchased - and in the case of Amazon digital movies, people own those movies which they've purchased through Amazon.

[WkdPaul]

15 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

There's a contradiction there: "you don't own the movie / TV show that was purchased"

 

If people don't own it, then they didn't purchase it. If they did purchase it, then they own it.

Yeah, that's the point of the lawsuit ; on Prime Video it says "purchase for $xx", the ToS states it can be removed, but doesn't say you only get a "on-demand viewing licence", though that's what they're currently arguing in court.

 

I have Prime Video and won't buy on there because I know it's a purchase that'll stay on that subscription service, if it's possible to get a digital copy and have it locally (not through Prime Video), then yeah, her point doesn't stand. Doesn't seem to be the case currently, and I doubt they'll have MP4s of movies available from Prime Video anytime soon.

Edited October 29, 2020 by wkdpaul

[Blademaster91]

52 minutes ago, sub68 said:

*looks at flash drive

it has about 100 dollars or more in music

yep a ton of albums

Oh,nice $100 or more is quite a bit, probably more than most people because of music streaming.

15 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

There's a contradiction there: "you don't own the movie / TV show that was purchased"

 

If people don't own it, then they didn't purchase it. If they did purchase it, then they own it.

 

 

Nope:

 

 Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase

 

-snip-

This is a good point, I wish getting movies or shows were like games, although the movie industry would never allow that.

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

This is why I like digital copies (ie the file mp4 or what ever) or physical copies.

not viewing though said app

I've lately been questioning the legality of screen recording movies. If DVR and taping radio are both legal, where does screen recording on a computer stand?

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While I'll agree that most people probably don't understand...I'd prefer a "purchase" button over "Indefinite purchase of a license".  Purchase is a good term for it (in my opinion)...just like a purchase option for insurance.  Ultimately, while people might not understand, purchase in a digital world is really just like a lifetime subscription.

Not very comparable. When you purchase insurance it has a set time-frame stated from the start before or at purchase. If anything it's "lifetime" and that's directly tied to your lifetime. Either way, you actually purchase it knowing when it will expire, not just whenever the insurance company decides to stop covering you.

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

How many people really buy movies anymore? I personally don't see the point. Want to watch it again? Rent it. The chances that you'll want to watch it more times than the cost difference is, is pretty low. Plus with services like Netflix, there's always movies to watch on there. Really love it? There's other places you can go to get a copy.

This has nothing to do with anything, but Amazon Prime has a lot of movies only available for "purchase" and not streaming, i.e. they also aren't available on any other platform. So if you want to watch those movies you have to either buy physical and wait for shipping, "purchase" it through Prime, or pirate it.

Given Amazon makes no distinction that you don't own what you paid to own, why would you assume that purchasing it digitally doesn't give you ownership over the copy like physical does, as has been the case for the past few thousand years when you purchased something?

 

1 hour ago, mariushm said:

It's just delayed expiration .. . 10-20 years after purchase, good luck playing the disc, as the medium goes bad (unless you keep it in a sealed box in controlled environment.

 

at least if you're willing to break the law by ripping the media then you can say you truly "own" that movie and nobody can take it from you.

Ripping the media for digital backups is 100% legal.

 

1 hour ago, Velcade said:

 

Pretty straight forward.

TOS and EULAs are not law. Don't assume so. Until there's a law that passes that definitively defines these terms and agreements, it's just a case for an argument in the resulting trial.

[JZStudios]

17 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

This is a good point, I wish getting movies or shows were like games, although the movie industry would never allow that.

Games are trying to pull the same shit though. Valve is very adamant that they own your account and all your purchases and you just pay for an indefinite rental period they have the right to revoke at any point.

Only GOG actually allows you to own your purchases, and now they even have a 30 day refund policy like real stores, instead of Steam's forced bare minimum they tried to spin into "good guy Valve" after getting royally screwed in court.

[Delicieuxz]

Is there a contact for the plaintiff, Amanda Caudel? According to the filed complaint, it looks like she's representing herself... which I would think could spell disaster for her case unless she really knows what she's doing.

[mariushm]

25 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

 

Ripping the media for digital backups is 100% legal.

 

 

Not in all countries.

And not legal if ripping requires working around drm (de css on dvd, acss or whatever is called on bluray)

 

if it was legal, you would see products in stores with built in hard drives allowing you to medium shift your blurays and stream inside your house.

[Delicieuxz]

17 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Not in all countries.

And not legal if ripping requires working around drm (de css on dvd, acss or whatever is called on bluray)

 

if it was legal, you would see products in stores with built in hard drives allowing you to medium shift your blurays and stream inside your house.

In the US, it's been ruled multiple times over that is' legal to circumvent DRM to back-up digital goods you own, or for "fair use".

 

Court: breaking DRM for a “fair use” is legal

The Library of Congress's New DRM Rules Are a Victory For Digital Freedom

Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses

In Groundbreaking Decision, Feds Say Hacking DRM to Fix Your Electronics Is Legal

New copyright ruling protects right to repair gadgets and archive video games

 

The EU's Court of Justice has stated that there are circumstances in which breaking DRM is legitimate - such as to make use of your digital goods if the DRM is obstructing your ability to make lawful use of what you purchased.

 

Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances

Quote

The Court of Justice next states that the legal protection covers only the technological measures intended to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution, for which authorisation from the copyrightholder is required. That legal protection must respect the principle of proportionality without prohibiting devices or activities which have a commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent the technical protection for unlawful purposes.

 

There, the CoJ states that the legal protections of DRM apply only when the intention of breaking DRM is to conduct illegal and copyright-violating activities, such as unauthorized reproduction and distribution. That doesn't include breaking DRM for a game you own in order to play it.

[Blademaster91]

28 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Games are trying to pull the same shit though. Valve is very adamant that they own your account and all your purchases and you just pay for an indefinite rental period they have the right to revoke at any point.

Only GOG actually allows you to own your purchases, and now they even have a 30 day refund policy like real stores, instead of Steam's forced bare minimum they tried to spin into "good guy Valve" after getting royally screwed in court.

Games are trying to do the same thing with pushing gamers into game streaming services, or using storefronts that hold their games exclusive to that store and you need that store or launcher to run the game. Although I trust Valve more than other platforms because they do have a lot of games that you can launch without needing Steam, unlike most other storefronts.

[sub68]

59 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

I've lately been questioning the legality of screen recording movies. If DVR and taping radio are both legal, where does screen recording on a computer stand?

than it goes to the same as torrenting video I guess

[JZStudios]

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Games are trying to do the same thing with pushing gamers into game streaming services, or using storefronts that hold their games exclusive to that store and you need that store or launcher to run the game. Although I trust Valve more than other platforms because they do have a lot of games that you can launch without needing Steam, unlike most other storefronts.

I keep hearing that but I've not found anything, certainly nothing of value outside asset flips, that actually is DRM free and will launch without Steam. Even games that are DRM free on GOG have DRM on Steam. Steam has an "offline mode" but it's garbage.

 

Ironically, I'm assuming you're throwing shade at Epic, even though a fair number of games on there are 100% DRM free and you can play without using the launcher. Including Batman Arkham Knight which still has Denuvo on Steam. There's also the entirety of GOG.

 

Other than that I'm not aware of other actual storefronts besides publishers. And I guess MS, but I'm on Win7 so I've never touched it anyway.

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, sub68 said:

than it goes to the same as torrenting video I guess

I don't think so. Torrenting is getting someone else's copy they're distributing, which is illegal. Same thing with CDs and DVDs. You can rip your own, but you're not allowed to pass it off to anyone.

[sub68]

Just now, JZStudios said:

Same thing with CDs and DVDs. You can rip your own, but you're not allowed to pass it off to anyone.

I see what you mean. To be honest I have screen captured dvd and put them on a external ssd for media consumption on the go so that I would not have to bring stacks of dvd in the car.

[sub68]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Oh,nice $100 or more is quite a bit, probably more than most people because of music streaming.

well yes but its spread across several years from me and my older brother (my brother had a lot of early 2010-2014 music pop)

[dalekphalm]

37 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I see what you mean. To be honest I have screen captured dvd and put them on a external ssd for media consumption on the go so that I would not have to bring stacks of dvd in the car.

I'm curious why you used screen capture instead of ripping the DVD? It would have been significantly faster and you wouldn't need to watch the movie in real time.

 

31 minutes ago, sub68 said:

well yes but its spread across several years from me and my older brother (my brother had a lot of early 2010-2014 music pop)

I've probably spent thousands of dollars on music - of course back in the 90's and early 00's, we bought physical CD's. But I've spent well over $100 on digital DRM-free music from iTunes Store, for sure.

 

3 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

DVDs & Blurays may be old school, but they have their advantages. 

I haven't bought many lately, but I definitely prefer to buy Blu-Rays for movies and TV series - even putting aside the ownership issues, the visual quality of even a 1080p Blu-Ray is often as good or better than a 4K stream of the same movie. The bitrate is just so much higher for 1080p and 4K Blu-Rays.

3 hours ago, mariushm said:

It's just delayed expiration .. . 10-20 years after purchase, good luck playing the disc, as the medium goes bad (unless you keep it in a sealed box in controlled environment.

Sure... but that's the same about literally anything you buy physical - including vinyl, cassette tapes, 8track, so on and so forth.

3 hours ago, mariushm said:

at least if you're willing to break the law by ripping the media then you can say you truly "own" that movie and nobody can take it from you.

Yes, which is what you should be doing with all of your DVD's, Blu-Rays, CD's, etc - ripping copies for backup (Either by burning a duplicate to an M-Disc or storing them on a file server/HDD).

 

Most people won't bother of course because storing that much data in full quality gets very expensive, very quickly, and if you reduce quality to save space, it's not really a backup anymore.

[sub68]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm curious why you used screen capture instead of ripping the DVD? It would have been significantly faster and you wouldn't need to watch the movie in real time.

I actually used to screen capture b4 I figured out how to pull the video file from the disk

14 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I've probably spent thousands of dollars on music - of course back in the 90's and early 00's, we bought physical CD's. But I've spent well over $100 on digital DRM-free music from iTunes Store, for sure.

I feel like my music collection is smaller than everybody else

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, Velcade said:

 

Pretty straight forward.

At hand, the issue is the word "purchased". As you really haven't. I look forward to it being called "leased" in in the future, because that's actually what is going on.

[WkdPaul]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

At hand, the issue is the word "purchased". As you really haven't. I look forward to it being called "leased" in in the future, because that's actually what is going on.

They already have "rent" (for 24h IIRC ?) for a few $, so I'm wondering if another term would throw a wrench in that plan (when it comes to tech related stuff, people are easily confused and don't really read what's on screen, source ; I'm in IT so that is the whole reason that I have a job!  )

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

They already have "rent" (for 24h IIRC ?) for a few $, so I'm wondering if another term would throw a wrench in that plan (when it comes to tech related stuff, people are easily confused and don't really read what's on screen, source ; I'm in IT so that is the whole reason that I have a job!  )

I'm not sure what the final settlement will be, but "purchased" is at least fairly disingenuous. "Permanent Rental"? The issue is enough for Amazon to at least settle the issue, offer a 5c per user credit, pay the lawyers 15 million and change some disclaimers.

[Drama Lama]

It’s not an invasion, it’s an military operation tasked with taking over a country

[Donut417]

This is why I dont buy digital movies and TV shows. Ill rent from Amazon video if its dirt cheap and Ill stream, but primarily use prime for shipping. If Im going to own a movie Ill buy it physically and rip it to my Plex server. 

[rockking1379]

6 hours ago, sub68 said:

This is why I like digital copies (ie the file mp4 or what ever) or physical copies.

not viewing though said app

Exactly right here. I can work with digital downloads. Long as I get the file to store and back up. If I lose the file then that’s on me. 

6 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

DVDs & Blurays may be old school, but they have their advantages. 

Such as they can be ripped to digital versions?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 hours ago, Fasauceome said:

I'm sure there's some contractual outline in the TOS and who reads that anyway? So I doubt Amazon will have trouble winning this case

That would not be enough to win, much less to win without trouble. People repeatedly make the assumption that writing something in a ToS, EULA, etc. is a get-out-of-jail card but it's not: companies cannot self-enable to do whatever they want through ToS or EULAs, and if anything they do contradicts a law, is considered false advertisement, or is considered to mislead the consumer in a different direction than stated by the ToS, among other things, will be held liable for it. Even if they win, you can expect a battle.

 

 

5 hours ago, Velcade said:

This isn't really Amazon's problem.  If you're not educated enough to understand 'term's of service' that burden does not fall on Amazon.

Yes, it does, for many reasons. First, because you cannot get away legally with saying one thing in plain language and a different one in legalese somewhere in footprint, and blame the consumer for being "ignorant." Especially if what you say in legalese re-defines the plain terms used to described your product to consumers. If I put up a sign stating "purchase apples here", and accompany your order with some document stating in refined legal language that "here 'purchase' is understood as the temporary right to smell the fruits as long as we don't decide otherwise", I can guarantee you that I will be held responsible for every mislead consumer in any sane legal system.