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

[sub68]

18 minutes ago, rockking1379 said:

. Long as I get the file to store and back up

I keep all my music on a flash drive and I regularly back it up to a external hard drive.

If those two fail I keep a full copy of my music on a micro sd card inside of my phone.

umm you can still buy music from amazon this feels wrong considering that this thread is about amazon not being good. lol

[wall03]

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

my small problem with that (and the reason I don't own a garage full of CDs) is that I don't own a DVD player and my local library only has CDs/BlueRays, not USB sticks like what every brand should be selling

jk

[sub68]

1 minute ago, wall03 said:

my small problem with that is that I don't own a DVD player

*looks at three pc that have dvd drives

1 minute ago, wall03 said:

only has CDs/BlueRays, not USB sticks

oh

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

24 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I keep all my music on a flash drive and I regularly back it up to a external hard drive.

If those two fail I keep a full copy of my music on a micro sd card inside of my phone.

umm you can still buy music from amazon this feels wrong considering that this thread is about amazon not being good. lol

hAvE yOu TrIeD uSiNg GrOoVe MuSiC?

[sub68]

Just now, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

hAvE yOu TrIeD uSiNg GrOoVe MuSiC?

that app was bad

man it took forever to load up a song

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

1 minute ago, sub68 said:

that app was bad

man it took forever to load up a song

No Joke I actually use Groove Music though   Loads up pretty much instantly for me (well... if the HDD doesn't need to wake up)

[Brooksie359]

7 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's not actually the case. Just because something is in the tos does not mean they will win the case. If you false advertise but put an exception in the tos that doesn't make you immune to being sued for false advertisement. It is pretty common for tos to not hold up in court. The reason for this is to prevent companies for intentionally misleading people and using tos as an excuse to get away with it. Granted I'm not a lawyer and this is mostly based off of my conversations with my mom about tos who happens to be a contract lawyer so take this with a grain of salt. 

[Brooksie359]

7 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

Also even the wording in the tos is misleading. They use "indefinite amount of time" in the wording instead of a more clear term like unspecified or undefined. While indefinite has a clear meaning indefinitely doesn't and can mean either infinity or unspecified so some might assume they are referring to indefinitely and therefore an infinite amount of time. 

[Jumballi]

I recall a few cases being lost when the defense argued that it's "clearly stated in the ToS". Where the layman's position is taken and found that the average person is unable to tell the difference, or the description at the time of purchase shows it to not be so to the layman.

[Windows7ge]

11 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

most don't know the difference between WiFi and Internet.

There's a difference!?! I mean...I'd give people the benefit of a doubt...

 

 

[Bombastinator]

Makes me curious about representation and how the suit was filed.  Crazy lawsuits happen, but if there’s a class action and a real firm picked it up this whole bit would have been planned for, and someone on the legal team thinks there’s a good reason they can win this thing.

[CarlBar]

16 hours 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?

 

 

In the UK at least both of the first two are technically illegal, but never enforced. Not sure about the rest of the world but that may be a factor in other parts of the world.

[S w a t s o n]

Surprised this lawsuit is going through. I thought we already accepted our new license based overlords. Youtube/Google and Apple also already offer movie purchase/rentals, as does Cineplex (Canadian movie theatre chain).

 

Dont see how this differs to any other rental or subscription service, if it applies to them it applies to Amazon

[Justaphysicsnerd]

I think they just might ask Amazon to change what it says on the purchase button or the whole lawsuit might just become a battle of words, like what does the word purchase mean (I know what it means...I want to say that Amazon might say that it means *something*something*something*something*  and then the court might say it means *something else**something else*something else* )

[jeanluckpiccard]

22 hours ago, Velcade said:

If there's no way to download the media and play it outside of Prime then you don't own that media. 

Although I really cringe siding with Amazon...I agree. It's kind of like renting the same shows or movies over and over and over again. You have 'access' to it for as long as you pay for a subscription, but you never really own the media. For example, if you were to go to rent the same DVD that costs the store $20 a dozen times, you never own it just because you've given the rental store more than its worth...

[paddy-stone]

See, this is why I don't buy digital movies, the companies involved (or movie makers, if the policies have come from them) always find a way to f*** you over and say that you don't "own" them. I'd rather buy a blu-ray and rip a digital copy and keep the original disc safe and sound.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, jeanluckpiccard said:

Although I really cringe siding with Amazon...I agree. It's kind of like renting the same shows or movies over and over and over again. You have 'access' to it for as long as you pay for a subscription, but you never really own the media. For example, if you were to go to rent the same DVD that costs the store $20 a dozen times, you never own it just because you've given the rental store more than its worth...

There seems to be some confusion going on here.

 

Amazon Prime Video is two things:

1. A subscription based service that offers a catalogue of content to watch unlimited number of times as you wish

2. A Rental/Sales based service for digital content

 

We're talking about the 2nd thing - when you "buy" a movie on Prime, An Amazon Prime Membership is not required. If you have prime and let your sub laps, you can still watch that movie you bought. You can buy movies without ever subbing to prime (same with renting).

[wANKER]

No one remembers Blockbuster? 

You never owned that shit either. 

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, wANKER said:

No one remembers Blockbuster? 

You never owned that shit either. 

You did if you didn’t return it whether you wanted to or not.  It could get quite expensive.  I remember finding a misplaced blockbuster disc, cursing, attempting to return it, and being refused, because they’d rather sell me the disc. 

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

In the UK at least both of the first two are technically illegal, but never enforced. Not sure about the rest of the world but that may be a factor in other parts of the world.

Hmm. According to one guy online it seems it's legal to record, but not to hold it for an indefinite period of time, in the UK.

It all seems very muddy.

 

As to screen recording, add in the fact that you could have "purchased" the movie and you're just watching it offline...

 

1 hour ago, jeanluckpiccard said:

Although I really cringe siding with Amazon...I agree. It's kind of like renting the same shows or movies over and over and over again. You have 'access' to it for as long as you pay for a subscription, but you never really own the media. For example, if you were to go to rent the same DVD that costs the store $20 a dozen times, you never own it just because you've given the rental store more than its worth...

The difference is that rental stores never give an "indefinite rental period we can revoke at any point" under the guise of a "purchase." It's always explicitly a rental with either a limitation on rental time (i.e. a week) or items rented at a time.

Amazon has a "Rent" payment option of 48 hours or something, and a "Purchase" payment option to "own*"

*You rent for an indefinite period of time, removable by us for any reason at any time.

 

32 minutes ago, wANKER said:

No one remembers Blockbuster? 

You never owned that shit either. 

^Ditto. Amazon has a rental and a purchase option. If you purchased a movie from Blockbuster, which was an option, you owned it. The Amazon purchase option is treated as indefinite rental period under the guise of purchasing and owning it.

[Mark Kaine]

Exactly it's false advertising or.. worse? Like actually scamming basically they say "purchase" but really mean "rent"... 

 

 

Valve is currently arguing very similar in a case in France btw, where they say you don't "buy" games on Steam, you just "rent" them... 

Even though it clearly says buy / purchase in their DRM client (or elsewhere) and I'm also pretty sure in the past they advertised the games you "buy" being "yours forever" so clearly misleading the customer... 

 

 

I sure hope all this stuff gets regulated better and less in favor of the big corporations, or even regulated at all, it all feels kinda like the wild wild west of digital "ownership" still. 

[Orange1]

On 10/30/2020 at 10:08 AM, wANKER said:

No one remembers Blockbuster? 

You never owned that shit either. 

I remember it well, but its to old for most of the kids on LTT.

Renting games from independent stores was nice.

[DavidKalinowski]

On 10/29/2020 at 11:33 AM, wkdpaul said:

Agreed, but that's a distinction most of us here understand, but like I said, their point is that the purchase options are misleading, and for someone that doesn't know that you need a video file to actually own the media, it does seem to be misleading on the part or Amazon.

 

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the population is EXTREMELY tech illiterate, nowadays, most don't know the difference between WiFi and Internet.

Aint that the truth. I've had friends ask me what the best wifi provider in town is...

[Prodigy_Smit]

The person who filed this is insane. In that case all the movies that I downloaded for offline viewing with my netflix subscription should be my property.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, Smit Devrukhkar said:

The person who filed this is insane. In that case all the movies that I downloaded for offline viewing with my netflix subscription should be my property.

No, that isn't analogous. With Netflix, you paid for a subscription - not for individual movies. With the situation in this Amazon lawsuit, people are marketed individual movies and they pay for individual movies. And, according to what's been posted in this thread, Amazon's own ToS describes people's movie purchases as actually purchasing the digital content, calling the movie purchases "Purchased Digital Content". And on Amazon Prime's website, it says that people can buy the movies.

 

What would be insane about thinking that when you buy a movie, you bought the movie? People have been buying movies for many decades.