4 ms·

I mean yes. Like it or not, all parties involved agreed the terms. That's not true under piracy.

by donatj 4y ago

ipaddr 4y ago
By releasing a product into the public does a business agree to some piracy in the social contract?
wl 4y ago
The terms of service here are too intricate and contain provisions contrary to the average "purchaser's" expectations. There was no agreement here.
- donatj 4y ago
  Everyone by now is well aware this is the situation. This has happened so many times over the last 20 years that feigning ignorance is just silly.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    People aren't "feigning" ignorance. The terms of service are long, in legal language, and not meant to be read. The ignorance is by design.
    - donatj 4y ago
      It's feigning ignorance when everyone already knows something though. "Oh I didn't read the terms" doesn't apply when it's common knowledge.
  - wl 4y ago
    Generally, the people who are well aware of this situation are techies who have seen coverage of the issue in specialist media or who have been burnt by it personally.
throwaway858 4y ago
The consumer did not actually agree to the terms of: "I, the consumer, will pay you $XX to download the film to my device, but you can delete it from my device at any time in the future without giving me a refund". It may be written in the fine print, but it's not something that most rational consumers willingly agree to.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Exactly: take it to its logical conclusion. What if Amazon did this 5 minutes after they took your money for it, so you never got to watch it at all? Obviously that's not what anyone's agreeing to.
- vkou 4y ago
  The flipside of it is that surely Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe. Regulation of these shrink-wrap agreements is the only non-insane solution to this problem. Lawsuits are too slow and too expensive, and by the time you get enough people behind one, may be an exercise in squeezing blood out of a rock.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe. That's not their only other choice. They could also let you download the content so you're not dependent on them forever to watch it.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      Amazon cannot just let you download the content. It's not up to them.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        It certainly is up to them. They negotiated a contract with the content producers that did not allow for that, and could have negotiated a different contract that did by offering more.
giantrobot 4y ago
Agreeing to terms without informed consent is not consent. A lay person can't honestly be expected to fully understand a novel's worth of legalese. From a moral standpoint, fuck the megacorps with a team of lawyers foisting such bullshit on people.

I mean yes. Like it or not, all parties involved agreed the terms. That's not true under piracy.

by donatj 4y ago

I mean yes. Like it or not, all parties involved agreed the terms. That's not true under piracy.

ipaddr 4y ago

By releasing a product into the public does a business agree to some piracy in the social contract?

wl 4y ago

The terms of service here are too intricate and contain provisions contrary to the average "purchaser's" expectations. There was no agreement here.

donatj 4y ago
Everyone by now is well aware this is the situation. This has happened so many times over the last 20 years that feigning ignorance is just silly.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  People aren't "feigning" ignorance. The terms of service are long, in legal language, and not meant to be read. The ignorance is by design.
  - donatj 4y ago
    It's feigning ignorance when everyone already knows something though. "Oh I didn't read the terms" doesn't apply when it's common knowledge.
- wl 4y ago
  Generally, the people who are well aware of this situation are techies who have seen coverage of the issue in specialist media or who have been burnt by it personally.

throwaway858 4y ago

The consumer did not actually agree to the terms of: "I, the consumer, will pay you $XX to download the film to my device, but you can delete it from my device at any time in the future without giving me a refund". It may be written in the fine print, but it's not something that most rational consumers willingly agree to.

josephcsible 4y ago
Exactly: take it to its logical conclusion. What if Amazon did this 5 minutes after they took your money for it, so you never got to watch it at all? Obviously that's not what anyone's agreeing to.
vkou 4y ago
The flipside of it is that surely Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe. Regulation of these shrink-wrap agreements is the only non-insane solution to this problem. Lawsuits are too slow and too expensive, and by the time you get enough people behind one, may be an exercise in squeezing blood out of a rock.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe. That's not their only other choice. They could also let you download the content so you're not dependent on them forever to watch it.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    Amazon cannot just let you download the content. It's not up to them.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      It certainly is up to them. They negotiated a contract with the content producers that did not allow for that, and could have negotiated a different contract that did by offering more.

giantrobot 4y ago

Agreeing to terms without informed consent is not consent. A lay person can't honestly be expected to fully understand a novel's worth of legalese. From a moral standpoint, fuck the megacorps with a team of lawyers foisting such bullshit on people.