3 ms·
Fair enough. But the person who sold you the property would still be wrong which makes what Apple is doing wrong. That being said, in reality, it appears (as m
by addicted 8y ago
Fair enough. But the person who sold you the property would still be wrong which makes what Apple is doing wrong.
That being said, in reality, it appears (as many have pointed out) that digital product “sales” are actually closer to indefinite rentals. And as a result your original analogy is closer to reality, but is far from what people expect when they “buy” a movie from iTunes, since a reasonable expectation would be the house or propane tank purchase analogy.
- mbostleman 8y agoAgreed. Apple is wrong if in the agreement there was no mention of the fact that Apple did not own the thing they were selling and that if the real owner chose to remove it from Apple someday then it would also be removed from the buyer. I'm assuming that would basically be fraud though and as such is not what's happening here. I'm assuming that the inability of Apple to provide access forever was spelled out up front. And I get that buyer's expectation does not match those terms of the agreement. But I'm not seeing any injustice. Maybe a lesson in buyer beware, but not any wrongdoing.
- lukeschlather 8y ago> I'm assuming that the inability of Apple to provide access forever was spelled out up front. I don't see how that can be argued with a straight face unless when you hit the "buy" button the license expiration date was clearly marked. Obviously "we can terminate rights at our discretion" was buried in a mountain of legalese but nobody should be expected to read or understand what that means.
- mbostleman 8y agoSo "buried in a mountain of legalese" is the test for whether or not a term can be enforced? Trying to imagine how that can actually be implemented legally. Contracts shall not exceed 1000 words?