3 ms·
While I personally agree, ownership should be explicit - their defence isn't as silly as it looks. "reasonable belief" is an actual mechanism in english law (t
by soneil 6y ago
While I personally agree, ownership should be explicit - their defence isn't as silly as it looks. "reasonable belief" is an actual mechanism in english law (the system, not the nation), and the learned behaviours of "buy it on Kindle", "buy it on Steam", etc, do support it.
It's essentially the "times have changed" argument; that the common nomenclature for "purchase a non-exclusive license with no fixed term" is "buy a copy", and "purchase a non-exclusive licence with a fixed term" is "rent a copy". And if that is true for the vast majority of consumers, the argument does hold weight.
- josephcsible 6y agoWhen you rent something, you're supposed to be told very clearly up front when your last day when the thing is.
- fastball 6y agoIsn't that the distinction though? A rental has a clear end date, enforced by Apple. A purchase does not, it can merely disappear from Apple's catalogue at some point, due to licensing issues. Apple has no idea how long that thing will be around, so they can't really quote a date your "purchase" ends.
- akoncius 6y agoone approach: if license expires old buyers still should be able to watch that movie and license expiration could be applied only on new sales. on the other hand, apple is well educated how industry works and they are well aware that purchase is not full ownership of copy so you could interpret it as intentional attempt to mislead customers.
- amelius 6y agoSadly, the vast majority of consumers totally expects to be ripped off in one way or another. So, yes indeed.