4 ms·

https://www.primevideo.com/help/ref=atv_hp_cnt?_encoding=UTF8&nodeId=202095500 https://www.primevideo.com/help/ref=atv_hp_cnt?_encoding=UTF... Viewing Period:

• beagle3 6y ago
  "purchased" video. The "terms of use" limitation does not say "until we go bankrupt" or "until we decide to not let you for business reasons", and it does say "purchased videos". That has a well defined meaning, which contract weasel words can't change. Courts in Europe have ordered refunds for e.g. PS3 updates that removed Linux abilities - I'm sure the weasel legalese originally said Sony is allowed to do that. There is a law of the land, and it is not overriden by an amazon webpage in general, even if it does in some US states. If Amazon folds, how come my "purchased" video disappears with it? Words have a meaning that cannot just be redefined at will with legalese. Try to pay someone salary, subject to the limitation that it is in negative dollars, and see how far that gets you in court. So far, companies like Microsoft who shut down their DRM services have refunded those purchases ; Companies that folded did not. I suspect if Microsoft got to court without a refund, court would have ordered them to refund or give a DRM-free copy. Either way, it's clear that for Microsoft, the public relation + court costs outweighed the refund cost. My suggestion is to make that effectively law, so that not just microsoft (who stand to lose from this action) would actually consider it a-priori.