3 ms·
They'll need to fix this, the content industry. The deals about the contracts are one thing but the reason they are removed creates demand by exclusives. What
by drawkbox 13y ago
They'll need to fix this, the content industry.
The deals about the contracts are one thing but the reason they are removed creates demand by exclusives. What kind of demand are you creating for someone that already owns it? Other than a demand for their money back?
Amazon needs to work out a deal with the content industry on this, so owning a movie doesn't apply to streaming false demand creation. Purchasers get to keep streaming when streaming rights aren't owned for a time.
- voltagex_ 13y agoWhy do "they" need to fix it? They seem to be doing quite well (sellers of digitally restricted media) and there's been no mainstream outcry. I try to buy DRM-free where possible, but most of my friends don't care or don't know any better.
- peterkelly 13y agoBecause their current practice can only be described as fraud. Despite what the fine print says (which I'm sure explains they're allowed to do this), most people are under the impression that they are buying a product, much like you would in the store. To someone who believes they have bought/purchased something, it's like discovering that one day Amazon or Disney snuck into your home to steal your DVDs so they can re-sell them to you again next christmas. But then you read the fine print in the contract and realise that clause 14.2 (a) stated that they're allowed to do this. The fix is for them to state "you will have access to this video for a period of 12 months" or similar.