> I don't expect anything to exist "forever". On one hand, that's kinda fair. Forever is pretty rough. On the other hand, companies probably shouldn't use the

> I don't expect anything to exist "forever". On one hand, that's kinda fair. Forever is pretty rough. On the other hand, companies probably shouldn't use the word forever when promising things then. I don't like your solution, because there's legitimately movies I really only want to watch once (actually that's the majority of them), and I'm pretty sure companies are gonna use the need to provide it for X time as a reason to jack up the price. I think there's a legitimate place for limited time things, but the deal should be up front and you shouldn't be using the word "forever". Also, kinda limits the notion of "buying" far beyond the standard english definition. "Buying" a ticket to a movie in a theater is perfectly legitimate, but doesn't really correspond to anything you're talking about. We all know we have to leave the movie theater afterwards and can't watch the movie again. This is fine, generally, because we know the deal going into it. It seems like the solution here is to have companies be up front with the deal. I feel like the easiest way to do that is to hold a couple companies accountable for the language they use when promising something, and the rest of them will be very up front, very quickly. And I don't mean bury it in a EULA, but the actual deal that gets filtered down to the human beings, just make it so that only provisions of the EULA that most customers know about are actually enforceable or something.