36 ms·

Amazon Argues Users Don't Own Purchased Prime Video Content

308 points by _Microft 6y ago

pochamago 6y ago
Amazon is, of course, right, unfortunately. Licenses is pretty much all anyone sells in media, and many of those are quite restrictive
- ponker 6y ago
  The courts will decide whether Amazon is right. One totally reasonable outcome might be that Amazon and other vendors will not be allowed to use the word "Purchase" for content that you do not own outright in perpetuity with rights similar to those of a book purchaser.
  - andybak 6y ago
    I think this is the key point. They want to have their cake and eat it. Either sell me things or stop using everyday words that imply you are.
  - csunbird 6y ago
    I really want an EU directive to define what is a "Sale" and what is a "License" or "Rent" and make it impossible to use the word "Purchase" when it is licensed to you, only to be used when you truly own the product.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      I mean I agree with that this would be nice but I don't think this change would actually benefit ... well anyone because you can't buy really copyrighted works. The law turns any work on physical media into a single restricted-use indefinite transferable "license." It's not the word change would spawn a digital market where you could actually buy.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Even a book purchaser only gets a "limited license" on the book's contents. The property rights only extend to the physical item, not what's printed in it. That's the whole issue with online consumption. The physical medium has disappeared and so only the license remains. The legal framework has not caught up yet. Amazon T&Cs' wording is wishy-washy ("on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time") and that wording may cause them problems especially where consumers protection is extensive. My limited knowledge on contract law is that this sort of unspecified duration may not be permitted because the parties (especially the consumer) cannot know what he is signing up to when entering into the contract.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      When buying a book, the only right that you don't get is the right to copy all or part of the book. Otherwise, you can keep it forever, sell it, lend it to others, sell it overseas (subject to any import/export laws, of course). This is not the same with a CD for a video-game, for example. I still remember that my copy of Starcraft had a note that I should notify Blizzard if I indended to lend the CD to any of my friends!
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        The big difference is that the CD for a video-game is just a transport medium to allow you to copy its contents on your computer. Sure you own the CD and can actually lend it but the person you lent it to has no right to effectively use that CD since only you were granted the right (license) to copy it on a limited number (which can be 1) of your own computers. Same if you buy a copy of MS Word. You do own the CD but you only get the license to install it on a couple of computers. Any term that purports to prevent you from lending your property has no value. The key point is that the license prevents others from installing the software/video game.
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        You are more or less right, even in the EU. I think the only part where you are clearly wrong is here: > Sure you own the CD and can actually lend it but the person you lent it to has no right to effectively use that CD since only you were granted the right (license) to copy it on a limited number (which can be 1) of your own computers. The second-hand gaming market is obvious proof that you are it is indeed legal for multiple people to copy the game to their own computers from the same CD. The only limitation is the same one that applies to books: copying a book that you own for personal purposes falls under fair use, but selling/lending the book without also passing on / destroying the copy invalidates the fair use exception.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  They are correct, imagine if you had a subscription to prime and then copied / made all of that available on your own ad-supported service for free. So Amazon has to put a license on the content. Whether the license is fair or not is up to the consumer to decide. The Buy vs Rent labelling is misleading - but as always, buyer beware.
  - mcintyre1994 6y ago
    Surely that's a different issue though? I can't buy a bunch of blurays of movies and Game of Thrones from a store, rip them and put them on my own ad-supported free service without getting in trouble. But the store doesn't have to stop me taking the bluray home just in case I do that.
    - crispyporkbites 6y ago
      It’s a licensing issue- you could do that if HBO granted you a license to do that. They don’t when you “buy” GoT online. I’m sure if you offered them a few hundred million dollars they’d let you.
- bambax 6y ago
  When you torrent a movie you own it, physically, for as long as you want. It's ironic that the only way to own something is to steal it first.
  - mads 6y ago
    What happens if I torrent a movie and buy a license on Prime? Is the torrent still illegal?
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      To be clear - I don’t understand downloading a torrent to be illegal at all. Just uploading to others. So depends on how you set up your BT client. ;)
    - Mindwipe 6y ago
      > What happens if I torrent a movie and buy a license on Prime? Is the torrent still illegal? Not legal in any country of the world I can think of.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jp0d 6y ago
I've a rant unrelated to the story! Amazon is different in that way. I'm already paying for the subscription and some movies are available only to rent or purchase. Very different from Netflix. The user interface is pathetic. It pissed me off the most when I get advertisement even after paying for their subscription.
- walterbell 6y ago
  Prime's main course is a fast-ship shop subscription, which comes with a side order of digital media, unlike pure-play Netflix.
- chadcmulligan 6y ago
  Apple TV is similar - it has a mix of free and pay extra if you have their subscription, its even more mixed up imho.
Raed667 6y ago
When I go on `primevideo.com` it tells me "Rent 3,99€" or "Buy 9,99€", which adds even more to the confusion. They shouldn't be allowed to call it "buy" if it doesn't mean I own the content I "bought".
- markx2 6y ago
  Steam allows you to 'buy' a game. On your Profile page it even shows the number you 'own'. Yet you 'own' none. All you 'buy' is a licence which can be revoked at any time should Steam, the Publisher or some other entity decide to do so. I would imagine that if Amazon and Steam changed 'buy' to 'licence' their income would fall off a cliff.
  - Raed667 6y ago
    When I buy a film on disk, I have a reasonable expectation that I own the film and can play it as long as I wish. Why should it be different just because I bought it in a different format? I hope consumer right groups and maybe the EU can crack down on this clear abuse of "wording".
    - gambiting 6y ago
      They already did, EU has ruled multiple times that you should be allowed to re-sell your digital content. Companies keep being brought to court over it and losing consistently. In spite of that, I don't understand how Steam and other digital stores haven't been forced to implement this yet.
      - filleokus 6y ago
        Depending on what limits can be imposed on the re-selling, I've always been afraid that laws like this could potentially be quite dangerous for digital goods markets. If we would apply the First Sale doctrine in the fullest to digital content, secondary marketplaces would pop-up where people just rented games by the hour instead of purchasing them. With the transaction costs being really low, and the utilisation rate for many games being fairly low, this seems like a no brainer. There are important differences between physical content and digital content that need to be considered.
gnicholas 6y ago
> “These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons.” At least with iTunes, you can keep a copy in cold storage. Although Amazon lets you download content, I believe you can’t store it long term without constantly being connected to the internet.
- judge2020 6y ago
  iTunes has the same problem - even though the contracts they have with the rights holders might be valid for 1000 years (or indefinite), that contract breaking would mean the consumer would lose access to their "bought" movies in their iTunes library, at least legally.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
I foolishly purchased an album or two from Google Play Music, which will be defunct by year end. Maybe the 'ownership' license will transfer over to Youtube Music if I migrate my subscription, but what if I don't? It doesn't seem logical that I lose the ability to listen to music that I purchased just because the intermediary that I purchased it through has gone. Do not the rights holders keep track of who owns licenses to listen to what? Shouldn't they be tracking this information on the other side of their business than the one that sends questionable DMCA(-ish?) take-down notices to github for potential copyright infringement usage? I won't be migrating my subscription to YT Music. I won't be purchasing any more music, movies, or TV shows that I can't store locally and backup via simple scripts with tools like rsync and robocopy. Purchasing a license to stream a specific item via a specific service is, literally, buying nothing. The Internet remembers everything. Except your digital copyright licenses. It's anti-consumer turtles all the way down.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Does Google music not allow you to download the albums as a pack of MP3s?
  - spijdar 6y ago
    It does -- and if Youtube Music lets you upload music files like GPM did (not sure if they've added this feature yet or not, I know they claimed they would), that's one avenue. However, I've noticed that the one album I've ever purchased through GPM is not available on YTM and even though I purchased it, it is still greyed out in my transferred playlists. Lesson learned -- I'm just glad I only ever made that mistake once and didn't lose a library (or would have to painstakingly download each album manually and reupload) EDIT: To be clear, not only did the "ownership" of the music not transfer, but (presumably) because of a change in licensing agreements the music has become entirely unavailable in any form. At least, it will once GPM goes offline.
    - whereistimbo 6y ago
      Can't you download your purchased album using Google Takeout?
fiftyacorn 6y ago
I hate this bit of modern life. CDs and DVDs were so simple, even the original ipods give you more control
- taneq 6y ago
  Even DVDs had their attempt at region coding, which was a pain in the ass for a while (limited "region changes" for most players). The legalities behind it eventually got overturned but it was a pain for a while.
- amelius 6y ago
  Perhaps someone should write a tool called "Amazon-dl".
  - cyberfart 6y ago
    too soon
keiferski 6y ago
The consistent push toward the "sharing economy" and or the "gig economy" makes me very uneasy, especially when it comes to physical things like houses, cars, or food. The end result will be that regular people don't own anything and don't know how to do things, whether that's repair your vehicle or cook a meal at home. When push comes to shove, the corporation actually owning such things can cut you off with virtually no consequences.
- pintxo 6y ago
  Anyone wondering how this might look like may like reading "Radicalized" by Cory Doctorow
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I feel bad about it too. I'll just quote what I wrote the other day[0] on the topic of "throwing money at things" instead of doing or owning things yourself: "Why would you own things and accept responsibility for maintaining them, if you could just throw money at the service provider and have the thing be present when it's needed? Of course the thing will be extremely limited in what you can do with it, subject to Terms&Conditions, but why would you want to do anything non-standard with stuff? There's always another service you can throw money at to solve the same problem. What's the end-game here? That we specialize into sub-species of humans, forever stuck in one role, with zero autonomy? No longer building wealth, we'll only be allocating the flow of money - from what Society gives us in reward for our work, straight to Services of said Society? Will we become specialized cells of the meta-multicellular organism Society becomes? I can see how we're on the path towards that reality, and I absolutely hate it." -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24787804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24787804
  - bserge 6y ago
    I see the same thing and it's disheartening. At least we're not immortal, now that would be hell in such a system. And the main problem is (imho) that people just seem to hate responsibility. It all stems from that, at the core it's all just shifting responsibility onto something or someone who will take it.
Denzel 6y ago
Not to be shallow, but this runs counter to Amazon's purported customer obsession - no? I say this as someone recently "tricked" into buying some movies through Prime. The layman in me thought, surely the distinction between "Rent" and "Buy" on this screen means I own the content. While the software engineer in me thought: what would happen if Prime or Amazon disappeared; how would I keep my purchase? Guess I have the answer to my question now. I don't. Will most likely purchase physical media for things that are important enough to me now.
- P_I_Staker 6y ago
  Their consumer obsession is to convince more people to use their platform to buy more products. Letting people free themselves from the platform runs counter to that goal. It's not even just that, they have licensing to worry about. Do any content providers even allow a cross platform license, if the Amazon/Google/ect even wanted to do this? The content creators have always wanted to charge by the view, they never wanted it to make it easy to "own" the content.
tweetle_beetle 6y ago
Fine. Change your CTAs from being labelled "Buy" to "Buy a limited license for on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time" if that's what it is. They currently use a discreet link on a single word "Terms", in a smaller font than anything else, which opens a 3000+ word document hosted on a different domain to avoid this. And there is also a dark pattern of mixing the words "buy", "order" and "purchase" in the same section of the page. Is it time for a protected legal definition of "buy" which excludes this nonsense? Does the EU already do this?
- melevittfl 6y ago
  I 100% agree this would be a big step forward.
- part1of2 6y ago
  Wouldn’t the better option be to have regulation that prevent Both the rights seller (Hollywood) & the seller From revoking the sale/license, and guaranteeing it in the company’s perpetuity? Essentially, require that Buy be Buy, and that the rights licensee can’t screw over the third party (consumers) Not sure how to handle it I’d say VEVO declared bankruptcy tho
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    This is orthogonal, and protecting the meaning of the word Buy sounds easier to achieve than outright attacking the publisher's business model, so I'd start with the former. Making people acutely aware they're not buying content, but only renting it temporarily, would already help change the conversation.
  - Wurdan 6y ago
    The license that Amazon has doesn't even need to change for there to be undesirable customer outcomes. I didn't realise the extent of the geo-locking of content bought through Prime Video, for example. So a film I bought while living in the UK is now unavailable to me in Sweden, despite both countries being served by Prime Video.
swiley 6y ago
This is exactly why I've stopped buying movies. The argument is that if you want to watch it again then you'll have to rent it again, and after a couple times you would have saved money by buying it. That's not true if there's a decent chance buying it still wouldn't let you watch it again in a couple years. I've just accepted that I'll only be able to watch things once and that's fine, I have much better things to do with my life than watch movies (like starting arguments on HN.)
- thedanbob 6y ago
  I only buy movies through iTunes because they let you download an actual (DRM'd) video file, which can then be de-DRM'd. Unfortunately, recent versions of iTunes have broken all DRM removal software. I have a virtual machine with an old copy of iTunes for any new movie purchases, but if that ever stops working I won't be buying any more movies either.
code4tee 6y ago
Clickbait headline. This is how it works with nearly all content you “buy” (music, movies, software, ...) You’re not buying the thing, rather you buying a license to use something. That license has terms. This is nothing new and nothing specific to Amazon.
jmkd 6y ago
Imagine this for DVDs. A lawyer representing the now-defunct Virgin Megastores is obliged by Warner Bros to contact you and insist you download a firmware update for your DVD player to disable playback of the Lord of the Rings disc you purchased 5 years ago.
- zokier 6y ago
  You don't own the content on DVDs either
  - thunkshift1 6y ago
    Thats ridiculous. Says who? Do you have any sources that say you don’t own dvd content indefinitely?
    - txcwpalpha 6y ago
      >When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23110430764/dvd-makers-say-that-you-dont-really-own-dvds-you-bought-thanks-to-copyright.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23110430764/dvd-m...
code4tee 6y ago
Clickbait headline. This is how it works with nearly all content you “buy” (music, movies, software, ...) You’re not buying the thing, rather you buying a license to use something. That license has terms. This is nothing new and nothing specific to Amazon. Go watch that text that flashed up on your old VHS tapes. You didn’t own it, you merely had a license to use it in a certain way. Invite too many people over to your house to watch a movie, you broke the license as now you’re staging a “public showing” and you don’t have a license for that. Schools used to get in trouble for this sort of thing when some kid brings in a home VHS tape and plays it at “school movie night.”
- bb88 6y ago
  When I bought a DVD from Walmart, Walmart didn't come to my house and claw the DVD back.
- sailfast 6y ago
  The ability to broadly revoke these rights without any cause is different here, though. I don't think you can equate the two in the same way for this reason. You needed to take action against an individual before for a reason in order to prevent them from using the thing they purchased. In the streaming / heavy DRM case, no cause is required and no recourse is provided to the individual. You're just out of luck.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >Clickbait headline. This is how it works with nearly all content you “buy” Yeah...that's the entire point of the discussion being held. When did it become a thing to call everything "clickbait"? The headline is literally a description of their argument, which is the point being discussed. Do you know what "clickbait" is? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clickbait https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clickbait How does this qualify?
gkanai 6y ago
It should be illegal to use "own" in an online service if that is not true- if you can't download the content and keep it.
crazygringo 6y ago
This isn't news, digital media has ALWAYS been like this... ...BUT it should be illegal for a digital content provider to revoke purchased licenses without compensation, regardless of ToS. The same way credit cards aren't allowed to set their own terms arbitrarily [1], neither should vendors of digital media. If a company decides to remove individual purchased titles, they should be forced by law to refund the purchase price to everyone involved. We need legislation for this. End of story. (If a company goes bankrupt or decides to end a service entirely it's a bit more complicated... but perhaps part of bankruptcy proceedings should be to give priority to pay a competing service a reasonable "maintenance fee" to provide continued digital access to the same titles wherever possible.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009
ubermonkey 6y ago
Has anyone really been confused by this? Unless it's free of DRM and easily copied, backed up, moved, etc, you don't own it, regardless of whatever language the vendor wraps it in. That doesn't stop me from occasionally "buying" movies or TV from Apple (for example) -- for reasons of convenience, say -- but I don't go into it blindly, and neither should anyone else.
- gvhst 6y ago
  Not for HN, but the less technology literate individuals certainly doesn't think about this.
- txcwpalpha 6y ago
  >Unless it's free of DRM and easily copied, backed up, moved, etc, Even in most of these cases you don't legally own it, either. Even when you buy a DVD, you are just buying a license to use that DVD to consume the content on it. You don't own the content, and it's a violation of that license to copy a movie off of a DVD and onto your hard drive, for example, even if it doesn't have DRM. It's just that the legal content owner typically doesn't come after that type of violation.
  - ubermonkey 6y ago
    So there's two places ownership gets fuzzy. There's the DRM case, where it's represented as a purchase but only persists as long as the seller allows it to (e.g., movies or TV digitally "purchased" from almost any vendor -- Apple, Amazon, etc). Then there's the DVD case, where they insist it's a license, but the buyer has physical control of the media and access to tech that ensures they can continue to enjoy it in perpetuity, even if the seller tries to revoke the license.
0goel0 6y ago
Yes, I wrote about this not too long ago: https://goel.io/drm-ownership https://goel.io/drm-ownership The issue is that they are selling you something to "buy", when really you are renting. They are lying and deceiving. No one's going to hold them accountable.
- sailfast 6y ago
  Came here to say this. If it's subject to DRM, you don't really own it. It's a limited license. That said, as someone that has purchased a number of many-view licenses (clicked "buy") I feel that this distinction has always been clear. I didn't expect the money I spent to view something streamed from a server to afford the same kind of usage as a book that I bought in hard-copy 20 years ago. You're either renting for a [period of time] or purchasing unlimited views. I guess my cynicism in this regard paid off. Changing options language to "Rent" vs. "Buy Unlimited Views" might make that more clear.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    If it's not subject to DRM, that doesn't mean you own it either. Even if Amazon just downloaded an unencrypted mp4, legally you would be guilty of felony copyright infringement under 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) if you were to sell it to someone else.
eplanit 6y ago
I noticed in the past couple of weeks that the verbiage on my fire stick changed from "you own this video" to "you purchased this video". I knew that meant something like this... and sure enough.
dikaio 6y ago
I spend on average 20k+ a year on media from the Apple iTunes Store, that number is dwarfed when I’m gaming. Guess I’ll just start scraping the media for free via tunnels and VPNs.
- beervirus 6y ago
  >20k+ a year How??
intotheabyss 6y ago
I'd like to see digital ownership in the form of non-fungible tokens on Ethereum. That way, you can easily re-sell your ownership on decentralized exchanges. That's true digital ownership.
whoknew1122 6y ago
I know this is red meat for the anti-Amazon crowd, but this isn't and shouldn't be a surprise. This is what happens with pretty much any digital good you buy. It's what happens with Kindle books. I remember having this very same conversation and debate on the Magic: The Gathering forums 18 years ago when Magic: The Gathering Online came out. If you're buying a digital good and don't get a copy that you can download onto your drive and interact offline, go ahead and assume you rented it. Should be that way? I would argue no. But it's the world we live in. No one refunded me the $2,000 I spent on Marvel Heroes when Gazillion abruptly shut the game down. I 'bought' all those digital goods, so why can't I play the game offline? Because I really just purchased a limited license (i.e. rented) to in-game items.
- KuhlMensch 6y ago
  "But it's the world we live in" if we do nothing.
- doggydogs94 6y ago
  My grandfather died. Now I have to keep a dedicated device to read his Kindle books (and there are a lot of them). The books can’t be transferred.
phailhaus 6y ago
Probably the only reason why Amazon is able to charge the prices that it does is _because_ of the fact that you are not purchasing the product itself. Amazon needs to make this much clearer though, and provide an option for you to buy media content outright at a higher price. The "buy" verbiage is straight up misleading.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  Because so many people would want to buy a random forgotten movie from the 90s that the prices can't be lower, than £3.99. Nonsense. It's already outrageously high if it's not an owning-type buy.
jmull 6y ago
It's such a mistake to use unintuitive terms with customers when your business model depends on a long-term relationship with your customers. You end up tricking them in the short term, but they learn to avoid relying on you in the future. If they can't actually sell you a copy of something they should stop presenting a "buy" button and stick with "rent".
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Wow. They say it right there on the screen "Rent $(x) or Buy $(y)". Now they say, they were just kidding? Give me a break.
waylandsmithers 6y ago
Is this the logical consequence of the web, that everything is reduced to just "content?" Whether it's a tweet or a movie that cost $100M to produce, it's just stuff that takes up space in a box on your screen.
CodeWriter23 6y ago
Don’t limit your ire to Amazon here. I purchased The Replacements “Pleased to Meet Me” from iTunes. Now the first track on the album is “not available in your region”. I’m an album listener, not a song listener, and now that record is useless to me. Bonus the Music App auto-deleted it for me.
racl101 6y ago
Pretty much people. This is why I never got down with the Apple Music bullshit. Nor Spotify. If I buy an album I want those damn audio files in my computer. All these businesses will continue to raise their membership fees and you still will own bupkis.
AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
> In fact, all of the Prime Video content that Plaintiff has ever purchased remains available. It's interesting how much this admission from Amazon says about the particular user. A few members of my family - and several friends - have all purchased Prime Video content that later became censored, subject to PR-fueled cancellations, or simply later had access restricted due to changing avails. We have laws against revealing medical information about individuals, but to me it seems just as likely that content viewing history is also a strongly private thing which ought to be protected, too. Is there anything protecting people against this kind of stuff being revealed when a lawsuit is being litigated?
donohoe 6y ago
Worth reminding that those ebooks you "bought" were likely "licenses" and not bought. Read the small print.
skee0083 6y ago
The final stage of capitalism is rent seeking. you don't own the stuff you buy. you must pay subscription fees to rent the stuff thus generating never ending profits for the capitalists.
d_theorist 6y ago
Has this not always been the case with pretty much all digital media purchases? Books, music, films, tv etc. It’s always a license you’re buying. Not saying this is good or bad, but at this point I think we’ve been over this many many times and it should not be a surprise to anybody who has been remotely paying attention.
ilyagr 6y ago
This case might address the question of how enforceable EULAs are. I wonder if someone more knowledgeable might chime in, but AFAIK this hasn't really been settled by courts. To quote the article: -------------- Amazon argues it doesn't matter whether Caudel actually bothered to read the fine print. "An individual does not need to read an agreement in order to be bound by it," writes Biderman. "A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service."
bookofjoe 6y ago
I once read that the test of whether or not you own something is, "can you sell it?" By this test, one does not own purchased Amazon Prime video content.
floatingatoll 6y ago
It's unfortunate that Amazon licenses rather than sells this digital property, because if they sold it, they could claim that it's exempt from the 30% in-app purchase fees that app stores charge.
jdofaz 6y ago
If I want to buy a movie I still buy it on disc (4k Blu-ray) if possible). Many newer movies come with a Movies Anywhere code so it also gets added to all my devices. It's the best of both worlds, best possible picture and sound for the big tv and I can I watch it on my phone if I want.
doggydogs94 6y ago
Even if you buy a DVD, you are still licensing the content. All that you own is the physical DVD.
floppiplopp 6y ago
I argue "illegally" downloading a drm free copy of media I purchased isn't theft.

308 points by _Microft 6y ago

Amazon is, of course, right, unfortunately. Licenses is pretty much all anyone sells in media, and many of those are quite restrictive

ponker 6y ago
The courts will decide whether Amazon is right. One totally reasonable outcome might be that Amazon and other vendors will not be allowed to use the word "Purchase" for content that you do not own outright in perpetuity with rights similar to those of a book purchaser.
- andybak 6y ago
  I think this is the key point. They want to have their cake and eat it. Either sell me things or stop using everyday words that imply you are.
- csunbird 6y ago
  I really want an EU directive to define what is a "Sale" and what is a "License" or "Rent" and make it impossible to use the word "Purchase" when it is licensed to you, only to be used when you truly own the product.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I mean I agree with that this would be nice but I don't think this change would actually benefit ... well anyone because you can't buy really copyrighted works. The law turns any work on physical media into a single restricted-use indefinite transferable "license." It's not the word change would spawn a digital market where you could actually buy.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Even a book purchaser only gets a "limited license" on the book's contents. The property rights only extend to the physical item, not what's printed in it. That's the whole issue with online consumption. The physical medium has disappeared and so only the license remains. The legal framework has not caught up yet. Amazon T&Cs' wording is wishy-washy ("on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time") and that wording may cause them problems especially where consumers protection is extensive. My limited knowledge on contract law is that this sort of unspecified duration may not be permitted because the parties (especially the consumer) cannot know what he is signing up to when entering into the contract.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    When buying a book, the only right that you don't get is the right to copy all or part of the book. Otherwise, you can keep it forever, sell it, lend it to others, sell it overseas (subject to any import/export laws, of course). This is not the same with a CD for a video-game, for example. I still remember that my copy of Starcraft had a note that I should notify Blizzard if I indended to lend the CD to any of my friends!
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      The big difference is that the CD for a video-game is just a transport medium to allow you to copy its contents on your computer. Sure you own the CD and can actually lend it but the person you lent it to has no right to effectively use that CD since only you were granted the right (license) to copy it on a limited number (which can be 1) of your own computers. Same if you buy a copy of MS Word. You do own the CD but you only get the license to install it on a couple of computers. Any term that purports to prevent you from lending your property has no value. The key point is that the license prevents others from installing the software/video game.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        You are more or less right, even in the EU. I think the only part where you are clearly wrong is here: > Sure you own the CD and can actually lend it but the person you lent it to has no right to effectively use that CD since only you were granted the right (license) to copy it on a limited number (which can be 1) of your own computers. The second-hand gaming market is obvious proof that you are it is indeed legal for multiple people to copy the game to their own computers from the same CD. The only limitation is the same one that applies to books: copying a book that you own for personal purposes falls under fair use, but selling/lending the book without also passing on / destroying the copy invalidates the fair use exception.
crispyporkbites 6y ago
They are correct, imagine if you had a subscription to prime and then copied / made all of that available on your own ad-supported service for free. So Amazon has to put a license on the content. Whether the license is fair or not is up to the consumer to decide. The Buy vs Rent labelling is misleading - but as always, buyer beware.
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  Surely that's a different issue though? I can't buy a bunch of blurays of movies and Game of Thrones from a store, rip them and put them on my own ad-supported free service without getting in trouble. But the store doesn't have to stop me taking the bluray home just in case I do that.
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    It’s a licensing issue- you could do that if HBO granted you a license to do that. They don’t when you “buy” GoT online. I’m sure if you offered them a few hundred million dollars they’d let you.
bambax 6y ago
When you torrent a movie you own it, physically, for as long as you want. It's ironic that the only way to own something is to steal it first.
- mads 6y ago
  What happens if I torrent a movie and buy a license on Prime? Is the torrent still illegal?
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    To be clear - I don’t understand downloading a torrent to be illegal at all. Just uploading to others. So depends on how you set up your BT client. ;)
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    > What happens if I torrent a movie and buy a license on Prime? Is the torrent still illegal? Not legal in any country of the world I can think of.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jp0d 6y ago

I've a rant unrelated to the story! Amazon is different in that way. I'm already paying for the subscription and some movies are available only to rent or purchase. Very different from Netflix. The user interface is pathetic. It pissed me off the most when I get advertisement even after paying for their subscription.

walterbell 6y ago
Prime's main course is a fast-ship shop subscription, which comes with a side order of digital media, unlike pure-play Netflix.
chadcmulligan 6y ago
Apple TV is similar - it has a mix of free and pay extra if you have their subscription, its even more mixed up imho.

Raed667 6y ago

When I go on `primevideo.com` it tells me "Rent 3,99€" or "Buy 9,99€", which adds even more to the confusion. They shouldn't be allowed to call it "buy" if it doesn't mean I own the content I "bought".

markx2 6y ago
Steam allows you to 'buy' a game. On your Profile page it even shows the number you 'own'. Yet you 'own' none. All you 'buy' is a licence which can be revoked at any time should Steam, the Publisher or some other entity decide to do so. I would imagine that if Amazon and Steam changed 'buy' to 'licence' their income would fall off a cliff.
- Raed667 6y ago
  When I buy a film on disk, I have a reasonable expectation that I own the film and can play it as long as I wish. Why should it be different just because I bought it in a different format? I hope consumer right groups and maybe the EU can crack down on this clear abuse of "wording".
  - gambiting 6y ago
    They already did, EU has ruled multiple times that you should be allowed to re-sell your digital content. Companies keep being brought to court over it and losing consistently. In spite of that, I don't understand how Steam and other digital stores haven't been forced to implement this yet.
    - filleokus 6y ago
      Depending on what limits can be imposed on the re-selling, I've always been afraid that laws like this could potentially be quite dangerous for digital goods markets. If we would apply the First Sale doctrine in the fullest to digital content, secondary marketplaces would pop-up where people just rented games by the hour instead of purchasing them. With the transaction costs being really low, and the utilisation rate for many games being fairly low, this seems like a no brainer. There are important differences between physical content and digital content that need to be considered.

gnicholas 6y ago

> “These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons.” At least with iTunes, you can keep a copy in cold storage. Although Amazon lets you download content, I believe you can’t store it long term without constantly being connected to the internet.

judge2020 6y ago
iTunes has the same problem - even though the contracts they have with the rights holders might be valid for 1000 years (or indefinite), that contract breaking would mean the consumer would lose access to their "bought" movies in their iTunes library, at least legally.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

I foolishly purchased an album or two from Google Play Music, which will be defunct by year end. Maybe the 'ownership' license will transfer over to Youtube Music if I migrate my subscription, but what if I don't? It doesn't seem logical that I lose the ability to listen to music that I purchased just because the intermediary that I purchased it through has gone. Do not the rights holders keep track of who owns licenses to listen to what? Shouldn't they be tracking this information on the other side of their business than the one that sends questionable DMCA(-ish?) take-down notices to github for potential copyright infringement usage? I won't be migrating my subscription to YT Music. I won't be purchasing any more music, movies, or TV shows that I can't store locally and backup via simple scripts with tools like rsync and robocopy. Purchasing a license to stream a specific item via a specific service is, literally, buying nothing. The Internet remembers everything. Except your digital copyright licenses. It's anti-consumer turtles all the way down.

gambiting 6y ago
Does Google music not allow you to download the albums as a pack of MP3s?
- spijdar 6y ago
  It does -- and if Youtube Music lets you upload music files like GPM did (not sure if they've added this feature yet or not, I know they claimed they would), that's one avenue. However, I've noticed that the one album I've ever purchased through GPM is not available on YTM and even though I purchased it, it is still greyed out in my transferred playlists. Lesson learned -- I'm just glad I only ever made that mistake once and didn't lose a library (or would have to painstakingly download each album manually and reupload) EDIT: To be clear, not only did the "ownership" of the music not transfer, but (presumably) because of a change in licensing agreements the music has become entirely unavailable in any form. At least, it will once GPM goes offline.
  - whereistimbo 6y ago
    Can't you download your purchased album using Google Takeout?

fiftyacorn 6y ago

I hate this bit of modern life. CDs and DVDs were so simple, even the original ipods give you more control

taneq 6y ago
Even DVDs had their attempt at region coding, which was a pain in the ass for a while (limited "region changes" for most players). The legalities behind it eventually got overturned but it was a pain for a while.
amelius 6y ago
Perhaps someone should write a tool called "Amazon-dl".
- cyberfart 6y ago
  too soon

keiferski 6y ago

The consistent push toward the "sharing economy" and or the "gig economy" makes me very uneasy, especially when it comes to physical things like houses, cars, or food. The end result will be that regular people don't own anything and don't know how to do things, whether that's repair your vehicle or cook a meal at home. When push comes to shove, the corporation actually owning such things can cut you off with virtually no consequences.

pintxo 6y ago
Anyone wondering how this might look like may like reading "Radicalized" by Cory Doctorow
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I feel bad about it too. I'll just quote what I wrote the other day[0] on the topic of "throwing money at things" instead of doing or owning things yourself: "Why would you own things and accept responsibility for maintaining them, if you could just throw money at the service provider and have the thing be present when it's needed? Of course the thing will be extremely limited in what you can do with it, subject to Terms&Conditions, but why would you want to do anything non-standard with stuff? There's always another service you can throw money at to solve the same problem. What's the end-game here? That we specialize into sub-species of humans, forever stuck in one role, with zero autonomy? No longer building wealth, we'll only be allocating the flow of money - from what Society gives us in reward for our work, straight to Services of said Society? Will we become specialized cells of the meta-multicellular organism Society becomes? I can see how we're on the path towards that reality, and I absolutely hate it." -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24787804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24787804
- bserge 6y ago
  I see the same thing and it's disheartening. At least we're not immortal, now that would be hell in such a system. And the main problem is (imho) that people just seem to hate responsibility. It all stems from that, at the core it's all just shifting responsibility onto something or someone who will take it.

Denzel 6y ago

Not to be shallow, but this runs counter to Amazon's purported customer obsession - no? I say this as someone recently "tricked" into buying some movies through Prime. The layman in me thought, surely the distinction between "Rent" and "Buy" on this screen means I own the content. While the software engineer in me thought: what would happen if Prime or Amazon disappeared; how would I keep my purchase? Guess I have the answer to my question now. I don't. Will most likely purchase physical media for things that are important enough to me now.

P_I_Staker 6y ago
Their consumer obsession is to convince more people to use their platform to buy more products. Letting people free themselves from the platform runs counter to that goal. It's not even just that, they have licensing to worry about. Do any content providers even allow a cross platform license, if the Amazon/Google/ect even wanted to do this? The content creators have always wanted to charge by the view, they never wanted it to make it easy to "own" the content.

tweetle_beetle 6y ago

Fine. Change your CTAs from being labelled "Buy" to "Buy a limited license for on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time" if that's what it is. They currently use a discreet link on a single word "Terms", in a smaller font than anything else, which opens a 3000+ word document hosted on a different domain to avoid this. And there is also a dark pattern of mixing the words "buy", "order" and "purchase" in the same section of the page. Is it time for a protected legal definition of "buy" which excludes this nonsense? Does the EU already do this?

melevittfl 6y ago
I 100% agree this would be a big step forward.
part1of2 6y ago
Wouldn’t the better option be to have regulation that prevent Both the rights seller (Hollywood) & the seller From revoking the sale/license, and guaranteeing it in the company’s perpetuity? Essentially, require that Buy be Buy, and that the rights licensee can’t screw over the third party (consumers) Not sure how to handle it I’d say VEVO declared bankruptcy tho
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  This is orthogonal, and protecting the meaning of the word Buy sounds easier to achieve than outright attacking the publisher's business model, so I'd start with the former. Making people acutely aware they're not buying content, but only renting it temporarily, would already help change the conversation.
- Wurdan 6y ago
  The license that Amazon has doesn't even need to change for there to be undesirable customer outcomes. I didn't realise the extent of the geo-locking of content bought through Prime Video, for example. So a film I bought while living in the UK is now unavailable to me in Sweden, despite both countries being served by Prime Video.

swiley 6y ago

This is exactly why I've stopped buying movies. The argument is that if you want to watch it again then you'll have to rent it again, and after a couple times you would have saved money by buying it. That's not true if there's a decent chance buying it still wouldn't let you watch it again in a couple years. I've just accepted that I'll only be able to watch things once and that's fine, I have much better things to do with my life than watch movies (like starting arguments on HN.)

thedanbob 6y ago
I only buy movies through iTunes because they let you download an actual (DRM'd) video file, which can then be de-DRM'd. Unfortunately, recent versions of iTunes have broken all DRM removal software. I have a virtual machine with an old copy of iTunes for any new movie purchases, but if that ever stops working I won't be buying any more movies either.

code4tee 6y ago

jmkd 6y ago

Imagine this for DVDs. A lawyer representing the now-defunct Virgin Megastores is obliged by Warner Bros to contact you and insist you download a firmware update for your DVD player to disable playback of the Lord of the Rings disc you purchased 5 years ago.

zokier 6y ago
You don't own the content on DVDs either
- thunkshift1 6y ago
  Thats ridiculous. Says who? Do you have any sources that say you don’t own dvd content indefinitely?
  - txcwpalpha 6y ago
    >When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23110430764/dvd-makers-say-that-you-dont-really-own-dvds-you-bought-thanks-to-copyright.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150422/23110430764/dvd-m...

code4tee 6y ago

Clickbait headline. This is how it works with nearly all content you “buy” (music, movies, software, ...) You’re not buying the thing, rather you buying a license to use something. That license has terms. This is nothing new and nothing specific to Amazon. Go watch that text that flashed up on your old VHS tapes. You didn’t own it, you merely had a license to use it in a certain way. Invite too many people over to your house to watch a movie, you broke the license as now you’re staging a “public showing” and you don’t have a license for that. Schools used to get in trouble for this sort of thing when some kid brings in a home VHS tape and plays it at “school movie night.”

bb88 6y ago
When I bought a DVD from Walmart, Walmart didn't come to my house and claw the DVD back.
sailfast 6y ago
The ability to broadly revoke these rights without any cause is different here, though. I don't think you can equate the two in the same way for this reason. You needed to take action against an individual before for a reason in order to prevent them from using the thing they purchased. In the streaming / heavy DRM case, no cause is required and no recourse is provided to the individual. You're just out of luck.
itsoktocry 6y ago
>Clickbait headline. This is how it works with nearly all content you “buy” Yeah...that's the entire point of the discussion being held. When did it become a thing to call everything "clickbait"? The headline is literally a description of their argument, which is the point being discussed. Do you know what "clickbait" is? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clickbait https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clickbait How does this qualify?

gkanai 6y ago

It should be illegal to use "own" in an online service if that is not true- if you can't download the content and keep it.

crazygringo 6y ago

This isn't news, digital media has ALWAYS been like this... ...BUT it should be illegal for a digital content provider to revoke purchased licenses without compensation, regardless of ToS. The same way credit cards aren't allowed to set their own terms arbitrarily [1], neither should vendors of digital media. If a company decides to remove individual purchased titles, they should be forced by law to refund the purchase price to everyone involved. We need legislation for this. End of story. (If a company goes bankrupt or decides to end a service entirely it's a bit more complicated... but perhaps part of bankruptcy proceedings should be to give priority to pay a competing service a reasonable "maintenance fee" to provide continued digital access to the same titles wherever possible.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

ubermonkey 6y ago

Has anyone really been confused by this? Unless it's free of DRM and easily copied, backed up, moved, etc, you don't own it, regardless of whatever language the vendor wraps it in. That doesn't stop me from occasionally "buying" movies or TV from Apple (for example) -- for reasons of convenience, say -- but I don't go into it blindly, and neither should anyone else.

gvhst 6y ago
Not for HN, but the less technology literate individuals certainly doesn't think about this.
txcwpalpha 6y ago
>Unless it's free of DRM and easily copied, backed up, moved, etc, Even in most of these cases you don't legally own it, either. Even when you buy a DVD, you are just buying a license to use that DVD to consume the content on it. You don't own the content, and it's a violation of that license to copy a movie off of a DVD and onto your hard drive, for example, even if it doesn't have DRM. It's just that the legal content owner typically doesn't come after that type of violation.
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  So there's two places ownership gets fuzzy. There's the DRM case, where it's represented as a purchase but only persists as long as the seller allows it to (e.g., movies or TV digitally "purchased" from almost any vendor -- Apple, Amazon, etc). Then there's the DVD case, where they insist it's a license, but the buyer has physical control of the media and access to tech that ensures they can continue to enjoy it in perpetuity, even if the seller tries to revoke the license.

0goel0 6y ago

Yes, I wrote about this not too long ago: https://goel.io/drm-ownership https://goel.io/drm-ownership The issue is that they are selling you something to "buy", when really you are renting. They are lying and deceiving. No one's going to hold them accountable.

sailfast 6y ago
Came here to say this. If it's subject to DRM, you don't really own it. It's a limited license. That said, as someone that has purchased a number of many-view licenses (clicked "buy") I feel that this distinction has always been clear. I didn't expect the money I spent to view something streamed from a server to afford the same kind of usage as a book that I bought in hard-copy 20 years ago. You're either renting for a [period of time] or purchasing unlimited views. I guess my cynicism in this regard paid off. Changing options language to "Rent" vs. "Buy Unlimited Views" might make that more clear.
- judge2020 6y ago
  If it's not subject to DRM, that doesn't mean you own it either. Even if Amazon just downloaded an unencrypted mp4, legally you would be guilty of felony copyright infringement under 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) if you were to sell it to someone else.

eplanit 6y ago

I noticed in the past couple of weeks that the verbiage on my fire stick changed from "you own this video" to "you purchased this video". I knew that meant something like this... and sure enough.

dikaio 6y ago

I spend on average 20k+ a year on media from the Apple iTunes Store, that number is dwarfed when I’m gaming. Guess I’ll just start scraping the media for free via tunnels and VPNs.

beervirus 6y ago
>20k+ a year How??

intotheabyss 6y ago

I'd like to see digital ownership in the form of non-fungible tokens on Ethereum. That way, you can easily re-sell your ownership on decentralized exchanges. That's true digital ownership.

whoknew1122 6y ago

I know this is red meat for the anti-Amazon crowd, but this isn't and shouldn't be a surprise. This is what happens with pretty much any digital good you buy. It's what happens with Kindle books. I remember having this very same conversation and debate on the Magic: The Gathering forums 18 years ago when Magic: The Gathering Online came out. If you're buying a digital good and don't get a copy that you can download onto your drive and interact offline, go ahead and assume you rented it. Should be that way? I would argue no. But it's the world we live in. No one refunded me the $2,000 I spent on Marvel Heroes when Gazillion abruptly shut the game down. I 'bought' all those digital goods, so why can't I play the game offline? Because I really just purchased a limited license (i.e. rented) to in-game items.

KuhlMensch 6y ago
"But it's the world we live in" if we do nothing.
doggydogs94 6y ago
My grandfather died. Now I have to keep a dedicated device to read his Kindle books (and there are a lot of them). The books can’t be transferred.

phailhaus 6y ago

Probably the only reason why Amazon is able to charge the prices that it does is _because_ of the fact that you are not purchasing the product itself. Amazon needs to make this much clearer though, and provide an option for you to buy media content outright at a higher price. The "buy" verbiage is straight up misleading.

pmlnr 6y ago
Because so many people would want to buy a random forgotten movie from the 90s that the prices can't be lower, than £3.99. Nonsense. It's already outrageously high if it's not an owning-type buy.

jmull 6y ago

It's such a mistake to use unintuitive terms with customers when your business model depends on a long-term relationship with your customers. You end up tricking them in the short term, but they learn to avoid relying on you in the future. If they can't actually sell you a copy of something they should stop presenting a "buy" button and stick with "rent".

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Wow. They say it right there on the screen "Rent $(x) or Buy $(y)". Now they say, they were just kidding? Give me a break.

waylandsmithers 6y ago

Is this the logical consequence of the web, that everything is reduced to just "content?" Whether it's a tweet or a movie that cost $100M to produce, it's just stuff that takes up space in a box on your screen.

CodeWriter23 6y ago

Don’t limit your ire to Amazon here. I purchased The Replacements “Pleased to Meet Me” from iTunes. Now the first track on the album is “not available in your region”. I’m an album listener, not a song listener, and now that record is useless to me. Bonus the Music App auto-deleted it for me.

racl101 6y ago

Pretty much people. This is why I never got down with the Apple Music bullshit. Nor Spotify. If I buy an album I want those damn audio files in my computer. All these businesses will continue to raise their membership fees and you still will own bupkis.

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago

> In fact, all of the Prime Video content that Plaintiff has ever purchased remains available. It's interesting how much this admission from Amazon says about the particular user. A few members of my family - and several friends - have all purchased Prime Video content that later became censored, subject to PR-fueled cancellations, or simply later had access restricted due to changing avails. We have laws against revealing medical information about individuals, but to me it seems just as likely that content viewing history is also a strongly private thing which ought to be protected, too. Is there anything protecting people against this kind of stuff being revealed when a lawsuit is being litigated?

donohoe 6y ago

Worth reminding that those ebooks you "bought" were likely "licenses" and not bought. Read the small print.

skee0083 6y ago

The final stage of capitalism is rent seeking. you don't own the stuff you buy. you must pay subscription fees to rent the stuff thus generating never ending profits for the capitalists.

d_theorist 6y ago

Has this not always been the case with pretty much all digital media purchases? Books, music, films, tv etc. It’s always a license you’re buying. Not saying this is good or bad, but at this point I think we’ve been over this many many times and it should not be a surprise to anybody who has been remotely paying attention.

ilyagr 6y ago

This case might address the question of how enforceable EULAs are. I wonder if someone more knowledgeable might chime in, but AFAIK this hasn't really been settled by courts. To quote the article: -------------- Amazon argues it doesn't matter whether Caudel actually bothered to read the fine print. "An individual does not need to read an agreement in order to be bound by it," writes Biderman. "A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service."

bookofjoe 6y ago

I once read that the test of whether or not you own something is, "can you sell it?" By this test, one does not own purchased Amazon Prime video content.

floatingatoll 6y ago

It's unfortunate that Amazon licenses rather than sells this digital property, because if they sold it, they could claim that it's exempt from the 30% in-app purchase fees that app stores charge.

jdofaz 6y ago

If I want to buy a movie I still buy it on disc (4k Blu-ray) if possible). Many newer movies come with a Movies Anywhere code so it also gets added to all my devices. It's the best of both worlds, best possible picture and sound for the big tv and I can I watch it on my phone if I want.

doggydogs94 6y ago

Even if you buy a DVD, you are still licensing the content. All that you own is the physical DVD.

floppiplopp 6y ago

I argue "illegally" downloading a drm free copy of media I purchased isn't theft.