3 ms·

On the website the button does not say "rent", but "buy". That's theft. The theft pure and simple, ancient, which has been around forever. Nothing new. If you

On the website the button does not say "rent", but "buy". That's theft. The theft pure and simple, ancient, which has been around forever. Nothing new. If you SOLD something and somehow REMOVE it or the ability to use it, it's theft. Whether it's done using modern technology (software) or old technology (crowbar) is not important. The TOS do not override the law. Amazon and others use the technology to commit very old crimes.

paxys 4y ago
All these companies figured out how to get around the legal issues of this a long time ago. They aren't selling you the movie/song/game/book, they are selling you a license to it. And they can revoke the license whenever they want.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  This hasn't been legally figured out, it all exists in a gray area because they've never really been challenged on it. Most cases settle out of court because surprise, companies really, really don't want a proper legal answer to these questions. It's the same with stuff like Terms of Service contracts. 'Buy' and 'Rent' are two very ironclad terms in terms of consumer purchases though and I reckon if a case made its way to court they would likely rule in favor of the consumer. There was the case someone else brought up earlier of Andino v Apple arguing just that.
jbombadil 4y ago
Agree!. I'd love to live in a world where if the button I click reads "buy" then by law I actually own that: * It can't be taken away [1]. * I can lend it to anyone I want [2]. * I can sell it to whomever I want, for whatever price I want. If a company doesn't want to do this, then the button and all UI pieces MUST say "rent". Not just some minor line in the EULA. [1] Maybe the service where I downloaded it wants to go down? Great, then let me download it in a non-DRMed format to use forever. [2] And not having available to use myself during that time. Sure.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I understand and agree with what you're getting at, but having both [1] and [2] would be impossible. Without DRM, there's no way you could "lend" a digital copy to someone and remove your ability to use it.
  - wmf 4y ago
    They're already forcing DRM on us, so why not add those features to the DRM?
  - altruios 4y ago
    when in doubt, doubt DRM's necessity.
dylan604 4y ago
The button should read: Buy this revokable (at any time) license to view this content
- brnt 4y ago
  How about we don't let businesses redefine words to fit their business needs. "buy" already had a perfectly clear meaning, and whatever Amazon Prime peddles, you're not "buying" anything.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    It has been this way since recorded media has been made available. From the 45 your parents (grand-parents?) bought, the cassettes--VHS or audio--your parents bought (you bought?) to the CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, and now digital copies.
lamontcg 4y ago
Legally it doesn't work that way. Although I think that the laws should be strengthened so that it does work that way. Amazon needs to be forced to give you a permanent license any time you "buy" a digital right. Those bits need to really be permanent. The structure of Amazon's contract with the producer needs to be changed so it is clear that the consumers rights to those copies are non-revokable. And that law needs to be made retroactive to all past contracts. The termination of any contract with Amazon should only lead to Amazon no longer being able to sell new digital copies.
- zac23or 4y ago
  So Amazon needs to change the button to "rent". Without the change, it is at the very least false advertising. In the end, big companies can distort the words and etc, But theft is theft, it is very clear that it is theft.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    If you read the fine print you'll find that what you're buying is a license that can be revoked, so its currently perfectly legal. The law doesn't consider it theft. You'll have to get the laws changed so that contracts like that aren't legal.
    - zac23or 4y ago
      Do TOS protect Amazon from false advertising? Fantastic. It opens up a new way to deceive consumers.
janef0421 4y ago
That's probably the correct interpretation of the law, but the issue here isn't the law itself, but the cost to enforce it. There's no general precedent in US courts around these kinds of TOS contracts, so the matter would need to go trial, which would be very expensive. The vast majority of transactions with these kinds of terms are relatively small, a few hundred dollars at most, so it doesn't make sense to even retain a lawyer to threaten legal action.

paxys 4y ago

All these companies figured out how to get around the legal issues of this a long time ago. They aren't selling you the movie/song/game/book, they are selling you a license to it. And they can revoke the license whenever they want.

fzeroracer 4y ago
This hasn't been legally figured out, it all exists in a gray area because they've never really been challenged on it. Most cases settle out of court because surprise, companies really, really don't want a proper legal answer to these questions. It's the same with stuff like Terms of Service contracts. 'Buy' and 'Rent' are two very ironclad terms in terms of consumer purchases though and I reckon if a case made its way to court they would likely rule in favor of the consumer. There was the case someone else brought up earlier of Andino v Apple arguing just that.

jbombadil 4y ago

Agree!. I'd love to live in a world where if the button I click reads "buy" then by law I actually own that: * It can't be taken away [1]. * I can lend it to anyone I want [2]. * I can sell it to whomever I want, for whatever price I want. If a company doesn't want to do this, then the button and all UI pieces MUST say "rent". Not just some minor line in the EULA. [1] Maybe the service where I downloaded it wants to go down? Great, then let me download it in a non-DRMed format to use forever. [2] And not having available to use myself during that time. Sure.

jaywalk 4y ago
I understand and agree with what you're getting at, but having both [1] and [2] would be impossible. Without DRM, there's no way you could "lend" a digital copy to someone and remove your ability to use it.
- wmf 4y ago
  They're already forcing DRM on us, so why not add those features to the DRM?
- altruios 4y ago
  when in doubt, doubt DRM's necessity.

dylan604 4y ago

The button should read: Buy this revokable (at any time) license to view this content

brnt 4y ago
How about we don't let businesses redefine words to fit their business needs. "buy" already had a perfectly clear meaning, and whatever Amazon Prime peddles, you're not "buying" anything.
- dylan604 4y ago
  It has been this way since recorded media has been made available. From the 45 your parents (grand-parents?) bought, the cassettes--VHS or audio--your parents bought (you bought?) to the CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, and now digital copies.

lamontcg 4y ago

Legally it doesn't work that way. Although I think that the laws should be strengthened so that it does work that way. Amazon needs to be forced to give you a permanent license any time you "buy" a digital right. Those bits need to really be permanent. The structure of Amazon's contract with the producer needs to be changed so it is clear that the consumers rights to those copies are non-revokable. And that law needs to be made retroactive to all past contracts. The termination of any contract with Amazon should only lead to Amazon no longer being able to sell new digital copies.

zac23or 4y ago
So Amazon needs to change the button to "rent". Without the change, it is at the very least false advertising. In the end, big companies can distort the words and etc, But theft is theft, it is very clear that it is theft.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  If you read the fine print you'll find that what you're buying is a license that can be revoked, so its currently perfectly legal. The law doesn't consider it theft. You'll have to get the laws changed so that contracts like that aren't legal.
  - zac23or 4y ago
    Do TOS protect Amazon from false advertising? Fantastic. It opens up a new way to deceive consumers.

janef0421 4y ago

That's probably the correct interpretation of the law, but the issue here isn't the law itself, but the cost to enforce it. There's no general precedent in US courts around these kinds of TOS contracts, so the matter would need to go trial, which would be very expensive. The vast majority of transactions with these kinds of terms are relatively small, a few hundred dollars at most, so it doesn't make sense to even retain a lawyer to threaten legal action.