3 ms·
They should absolutely be forced to provide either a refund or a downloadable copy, this is absurd. It sounds like they didn't actually have the license necessa
by patmcc 3mo ago
They should absolutely be forced to provide either a refund or a downloadable copy, this is absurd. It sounds like they didn't actually have the license necessary to be able to sell these movies in any reasonable way.
- smelendez 3mo agoExactly — they should have just offered a lease until the end of the licensing agreement: “Pay $X today and watch this movie as many times as you want through June 2026!”
- CamperBob2 3mo agoWhen this was originally tried under the OG "DIVX" brand name, everybody (including me) threw a fit. Some warned that everything would work that way eventually anyway, and everybody (including me) blew them off.
- lokar 3mo agoI thought divx came with one play when you bought the disk, and then PPV after that
- fluoridation 3mo ago>Some warned that everything would work that way eventually anyway Well, they were wrong, weren't they? The way it works now is much worse: what you're purchasing is a license for playback for an indeterminate amount of time, which can be arbitrarily and unilaterally terminated by the provider.
- smsm42 3mo agoNot to worry, eventually somebody will file a class action lawsuit, and after mere 12 years of litigation everybody affected will get $2.17 in store credits (in another 5 years).