6 ms·

There needs to be a very large lawsuit or two about this. Claiming you can buy something, and then renting it, even if the rental is 20 years is fraud.

senko 4y ago
Yes. Good luck winning this with Amazon, Apple and Disney on the other side.
vel0city 4y ago
I buy a concert ticket. Does this mean I can go see that artist everywhere they perform forever now? No. I bought a revokable, limited access right to see a particular performance. Should we not use the term "buy" here as well?
- D13Fd 4y ago
  Agreed. Even when you "buy" a DVD or Blu-Ray, you are actually just buying a copy of the media with a limited license to use it for certain purposes. It's still copyright infringement if, for example, you buy a Blu-Ray disc and then open a movie theatre and start playing that disc publicly. The license you bought with the disc doesn't extend that far. Whether you "buy" a movie via a disc or a streaming service, you're really just buying a limited license to display the movie along with either physical or digital delivery.
- danparsonson 4y ago
  That's a false equivalence though - it's well understood in this case that you bought the ticket not the performance, and that the ticket expires after one use. The same is not true of buying films, as it used to be possible to keep a physical copy (e.g. DVD) that no-one could take away from you, and that was recent enough that I think most people still (reasonably IMO) expect a perpetual license when 'buying' a movie. We had a word in the olden days for buying a limited license to watch a film - we called it "renting".
  - vel0city 4y ago
    > buying a limited license to watch a film Buying a VHS was still a limited license. You weren't allowed to reproduce it and sell the reproductions. You weren't allowed to then operate a movie theater around your off the shelf VHS tapes. You weren't entitled to a new tape once the tape wore out.
    - indymike 4y ago
      > Buying a VHS was still a limited license. Yes, but no one would take the physical tape away when Target or their distributor lost the right to sell the video tape.
    - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
      That's not a license, that's just buying a copy enshrined in a physical medium. All the restrictions you mentioned derive from copyright law itself, not a license.
    - danparsonson 4y ago
      Missed a word, didn't I - a time limited license.
- alexfromapex 4y ago
  When you are sold the concert ticket you know you are buying it to only view at the one specific time and location. It is an event ticket. With a digital movie, ostensibly buying lets you view it whenever you want wherever you want in perpetuity but that's not actually the case. We can use the term "buy" for digital movies if you actually are just buying a ticket that lets you view the movie however wherever and whenever the license specifies. But that information should be highlighted to the buyer otherwise it's deception.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    > When you are sold the concert ticket you know you are buying it to only view at the one specific time and location. Do I know this? Are you assuming I bothered to read the ticket ahead of time? I bought a ticket to the Red Hot Chili Peppers 2022 Tour. I should be able to go to all the tour, right? Oh wait, you're telling me there's text on the ticket I should have read to understand it was only for one location and one evening? You really expected me to read all that legalese? > With a digital movie, ostensibly buying lets you view it whenever you want wherever you want in perpetuity but that's not actually the case. Ugh. I bet I would of had to read something to understand the limitations of what I was buying. I can't believe companies expect people to read about the things people buy these days, totally taking advantage of everyone by putting knowledge behind words.
    - alexfromapex 4y ago
      Arguing that reading anything, even small amounts of information located directly on the ticket or receipt, is "legalese" is very reductive and seems to be coming from an emotional rather than logical argument. Event tickets are an established practice that is very familiar and straightforward to consumers and as another commenter mentioned is a false equivalence for several reasons. There is an actual legal concept of an undue burden and that is exactly what having to read through many pages of fine print is. If you don't actually own digital content it should be highlighted very clearly, while placing a minimal undue burden on the consumer. Otherwise, it's deceptive.
      - 4y ago
- fsflover 4y ago
  You don't "buy the performance" but a ticket for a certain time.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    You don't by the streaming movie but a license for an indefinite time. And how do you know what the limits of the ticket or the license are? You read the document you're agreeing to when buying the ticket.
    - evouga 4y ago
      Many people have already said this, but: buying a ticket to a one-time event is not analogous to buying a license to watch a movie in perpetuity. A better analogy, that does not involve a one-time event, would be a lifetime pass to concert venue. You buy this pass, only to have the venue refuse to honor it a few years later.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        On Amazon, you're literally not buying a license to watch a movie in perpetuity. You're buying a license to access it for "an indefinite period of time". This is pretty clear and easy to see in the agreement they ask if you read before you check out.
- indymike 4y ago
  > I buy a concert ticket. Does this mean I can go see that artist everywhere they perform forever now? This is a bad analogy. A better one would be, your bought a car from me, and three years from now, I tow your car away and do not compensate you for taking the car. Because buyer beware, caveat emptor, etc...
  - vel0city 4y ago
    What part of a streaming movie is a physical item? It is even further removed and a worse analogy than my concert ticket is like a streaming movie license. With one you physically have a few thousand-pound piece of metal in your garage with a title from the government of ownership, the other you have a limited license on an account maintained by the service provider. If you "buy" a car, and don't get a title, then yeah sure I guess the title holder can take it away. You didn't own it; you never had the title for it.
    - indymike 4y ago
      > What part of a streaming movie is a physical item? The issue is telling someone this: Rent ($2.99) Rent HD ($3.99) Buy ($13.99) So I pick buy, and it sure looks like I own it because the other two choices were presented as rentals. The buy option really is a "long term rental" and should have a very easy to read disclaimer under it that says: "Buy access until 12/31/2029". That way the consumer does not conclude it is a purchase, like a DVD or VHS that I own until it wears out, or forever, whichever comes first. > If you "buy" a car, and don't get a title, then yeah sure I guess the title holder can take it away. You didn't own it; you never had the title for it. I bought my car with a loan. I did get a copy of the title, with the lien-holder listed on the back. The car is mine, but I cannot sell it without the lien-holder releasing the lien. Legally, I do own the car. It is very much mine. If I fail to make payments, the lien holder may go to court, and the court can allow them to reposes (note the "re" in reposes) the vehicle. Presenting something as "buy" when it is really "rent" is unethical at best, and illegal at worst, and it needs to be litigated now.
      - vel0city 4y ago
- npteljes 4y ago
  That doesn't compare. If I go to Amazon, look for a Harry Potter collection, I'm presented a Buy for kindle button. Not a "rent for some time, but read fast because we might take it away whenever" button. If they said rent, lease, license, borrow, peek momentarily into, it wouldn't be misleading.

senko 4y ago

Yes. Good luck winning this with Amazon, Apple and Disney on the other side.

vel0city 4y ago

I buy a concert ticket. Does this mean I can go see that artist everywhere they perform forever now? No. I bought a revokable, limited access right to see a particular performance. Should we not use the term "buy" here as well?

D13Fd 4y ago
Agreed. Even when you "buy" a DVD or Blu-Ray, you are actually just buying a copy of the media with a limited license to use it for certain purposes. It's still copyright infringement if, for example, you buy a Blu-Ray disc and then open a movie theatre and start playing that disc publicly. The license you bought with the disc doesn't extend that far. Whether you "buy" a movie via a disc or a streaming service, you're really just buying a limited license to display the movie along with either physical or digital delivery.
danparsonson 4y ago
That's a false equivalence though - it's well understood in this case that you bought the ticket not the performance, and that the ticket expires after one use. The same is not true of buying films, as it used to be possible to keep a physical copy (e.g. DVD) that no-one could take away from you, and that was recent enough that I think most people still (reasonably IMO) expect a perpetual license when 'buying' a movie. We had a word in the olden days for buying a limited license to watch a film - we called it "renting".
- vel0city 4y ago
  > buying a limited license to watch a film Buying a VHS was still a limited license. You weren't allowed to reproduce it and sell the reproductions. You weren't allowed to then operate a movie theater around your off the shelf VHS tapes. You weren't entitled to a new tape once the tape wore out.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > Buying a VHS was still a limited license. Yes, but no one would take the physical tape away when Target or their distributor lost the right to sell the video tape.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    That's not a license, that's just buying a copy enshrined in a physical medium. All the restrictions you mentioned derive from copyright law itself, not a license.
  - danparsonson 4y ago
    Missed a word, didn't I - a time limited license.
alexfromapex 4y ago
When you are sold the concert ticket you know you are buying it to only view at the one specific time and location. It is an event ticket. With a digital movie, ostensibly buying lets you view it whenever you want wherever you want in perpetuity but that's not actually the case. We can use the term "buy" for digital movies if you actually are just buying a ticket that lets you view the movie however wherever and whenever the license specifies. But that information should be highlighted to the buyer otherwise it's deception.
- vel0city 4y ago
  > When you are sold the concert ticket you know you are buying it to only view at the one specific time and location. Do I know this? Are you assuming I bothered to read the ticket ahead of time? I bought a ticket to the Red Hot Chili Peppers 2022 Tour. I should be able to go to all the tour, right? Oh wait, you're telling me there's text on the ticket I should have read to understand it was only for one location and one evening? You really expected me to read all that legalese? > With a digital movie, ostensibly buying lets you view it whenever you want wherever you want in perpetuity but that's not actually the case. Ugh. I bet I would of had to read something to understand the limitations of what I was buying. I can't believe companies expect people to read about the things people buy these days, totally taking advantage of everyone by putting knowledge behind words.
  - alexfromapex 4y ago
    Arguing that reading anything, even small amounts of information located directly on the ticket or receipt, is "legalese" is very reductive and seems to be coming from an emotional rather than logical argument. Event tickets are an established practice that is very familiar and straightforward to consumers and as another commenter mentioned is a false equivalence for several reasons. There is an actual legal concept of an undue burden and that is exactly what having to read through many pages of fine print is. If you don't actually own digital content it should be highlighted very clearly, while placing a minimal undue burden on the consumer. Otherwise, it's deceptive.
    - 4y ago
fsflover 4y ago
You don't "buy the performance" but a ticket for a certain time.
- vel0city 4y ago
  You don't by the streaming movie but a license for an indefinite time. And how do you know what the limits of the ticket or the license are? You read the document you're agreeing to when buying the ticket.
  - evouga 4y ago
    Many people have already said this, but: buying a ticket to a one-time event is not analogous to buying a license to watch a movie in perpetuity. A better analogy, that does not involve a one-time event, would be a lifetime pass to concert venue. You buy this pass, only to have the venue refuse to honor it a few years later.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      On Amazon, you're literally not buying a license to watch a movie in perpetuity. You're buying a license to access it for "an indefinite period of time". This is pretty clear and easy to see in the agreement they ask if you read before you check out.
indymike 4y ago
> I buy a concert ticket. Does this mean I can go see that artist everywhere they perform forever now? This is a bad analogy. A better one would be, your bought a car from me, and three years from now, I tow your car away and do not compensate you for taking the car. Because buyer beware, caveat emptor, etc...
- vel0city 4y ago
  What part of a streaming movie is a physical item? It is even further removed and a worse analogy than my concert ticket is like a streaming movie license. With one you physically have a few thousand-pound piece of metal in your garage with a title from the government of ownership, the other you have a limited license on an account maintained by the service provider. If you "buy" a car, and don't get a title, then yeah sure I guess the title holder can take it away. You didn't own it; you never had the title for it.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > What part of a streaming movie is a physical item? The issue is telling someone this: Rent ($2.99) Rent HD ($3.99) Buy ($13.99) So I pick buy, and it sure looks like I own it because the other two choices were presented as rentals. The buy option really is a "long term rental" and should have a very easy to read disclaimer under it that says: "Buy access until 12/31/2029". That way the consumer does not conclude it is a purchase, like a DVD or VHS that I own until it wears out, or forever, whichever comes first. > If you "buy" a car, and don't get a title, then yeah sure I guess the title holder can take it away. You didn't own it; you never had the title for it. I bought my car with a loan. I did get a copy of the title, with the lien-holder listed on the back. The car is mine, but I cannot sell it without the lien-holder releasing the lien. Legally, I do own the car. It is very much mine. If I fail to make payments, the lien holder may go to court, and the court can allow them to reposes (note the "re" in reposes) the vehicle. Presenting something as "buy" when it is really "rent" is unethical at best, and illegal at worst, and it needs to be litigated now.
    - vel0city 4y ago
npteljes 4y ago
That doesn't compare. If I go to Amazon, look for a Harry Potter collection, I'm presented a Buy for kindle button. Not a "rent for some time, but read fast because we might take it away whenever" button. If they said rent, lease, license, borrow, peek momentarily into, it wouldn't be misleading.