Amazon clearly lying about "ownership" on Prime.
You all remember just a few weeks ago when Sony ripped away a bunch of movies and TV shows people “owned”? This ad is on Amazon. You can’t “own” it on Prime. You can just access it until they lose the license. How can they get away with lying like this?
Did you click on it? Maybe it links to a torrent :D
Nobody with enough money has sued... Yet...
I mean, you can "buy" stuff in Amazon Prime Video off service. Unlike Netflix or other platforms, they will let you "buy or rent" streaming movies, which is the same as finding the movie on the Amazon storefront and buying the digital copy instead of a physical copy.
Now, does that mean they won't yank it? Not really. A digital license is a license, not a purchase. Is the word "buy" or "own" inaccurate? I'm hoping not, because like the Sony thing showed, platforms are desperate to not have the courts improvise what rights they owe the buyers on digital purchases.
I'm still buying my movies in 4K BluRay, though. And working on ripping all of them for streaming at home, now that I finally have the space.
A digital license is a license, not a purchase.
Stop repeating copyright cartel propaganda.
How are you digitizing BluRays? I've not found a way yet due to the DRM on those fuckers.
That's very interesting. But do you always have to buy Blu-ray just to get digital copies? I wonder if there is other options to actually own the movies without the licensing bullshit.
Ross Scott of Accursed Farms is planning a lawsuit for something similar https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-crew/servers-shutdown-lawsuit
This sort of blatant violation of the First Sale Doctrine shouldn't even require a lawsuit to stop; the FTC should prosecute companies for it proactively. We need to demand our government start doing its goddamn job again.
I used to buy movies on Amazon, assuming it worked like Steam does, where if Steam loses the license to sell it, you still have the ability to play it even if Steam isn't allowed to sell it.
Hell I still have access to the stuff I got back when Steam still sold movies (I honestly miss Steam movies...)
When people started telling me their copies of things they owned were no longer usable once Amazon stopped selling it, I stopped buying.
IF BUYING ISN'T OWNING PIRACY ISN'T STEALING!
I haven't ran into a situation where any of the digital copies of things I bought have been pulled. So I can't speak to what happened with your friends. But I will say that if you have any purchased digital copies of movies, you should at least setup Movies Anywhere and link all accounts you have. It isn't like how Steam will still allow you to download a pulled game. But it does give you copies of things on multiple sources once linked. So if you got something on Amazon, it would also be linked as "purchased" on other services like Vudu, YouTube/Play Movies, Apple, etc.. It won't apply to everything you have got but would likely cover most big name items.
It used to be marked with the old "Ultraviolet" branding, but when that was shutdown the basic underlying service was transferred to Movies Anywhere. Most of the time you can see which things would count because they have the MA logo. Not great for smaller releases and most shows won't be part of it (atm at least). Though some shows might also show up, as I have seen things from HBO and some other ones.
All that being said. You are very much correct about "buying isn't owning" these days. And even when there is something like MA, there are still thousands of movies and shows that will only ever get a digital "release" from torrents/P2P. Sad that some cool shit will never get a real HD re-master for Blu-ray (let alone streaming). I very much feel that studios should have at best a 10 year window to make whatever sales before the masters should be copied to public archives. If the studios won't do it, then there are more than plenty of people out there that would do the job for the love of keeping old media preserved and accessible. Also bullshit when I try to go the "legal" route and find a show on one service in HD but only in SD on others. It is pretty infuriating to see that in some cases I can only get like season 2 of something on say Vudu for example, but season 1 is seemingly exclusive to Amazon. And one is in HD and the other is only SD.
I had an Oculus account. I bought games for Oculus. Facebook forced me to link my Facebook account to it. Facebook removed Oculus accounts so it was all under Facebook accounts. Facebook deleted my account. I no longer owned the games I bought. I deleted the Facebook app.
Are people really out here buying a media that can only be viewed through an app? If it's not a file that can be downloaded and viewed elsewhere then I'm definitely not going for it... Who am I kidding? The seas have always been the life for me landlubbers!!
Because they control the FTC and any other regulatory agencies. It's called regulatory capture. The only other way they can be held accountable is through the pay to play court system which is biased towards them because they can drag it out until the other party gives up.
This is the answer.
All fed regulatory agencies are captured at this point.
When you click "buy" or "purchase" on a video on Amazon Prime, you're not actually coming into ownership of that movie of TV show. Instead, you're merely paying for a limited license for “on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time", as warned in the very small print on the company's website.
-- GamesRadar
they can get away apparently because of this very small print.
yarr-har-fiddle-dee-dee/ if you love to sail the seeries of tubes
plenty of room on that ad to replace 'own it now' with 'rent it until the studio deletes it or we quit paying for its rights'
yes. kinda sucks.
I believe there was a couple of attempts that tried to complain but got dismissed because the defense mentioned the complainant didn't read the TOS.
I just do the morally correct thing. Buy it, then pirate it so I really do own it forever. Inconvenient from a data storage perspective but the only simple solution I have on hand.
Or don't buy it, then pirate it.
Depends on what it is. I'll freeboot full priced games by well known companies that I don't want to support but smaller games from studios trying their heart out? I'm a sucker for chucking money at them.
Or don't buy it and don't pirate it either. Fuck em. This shit isn't even worth pirating.
Wouldn't call that piracy.
100%. That's a backup.
It's amazon. They pay actors and writers pennies and funding Amazon is itself completely immoral by any means. Even after the "fix" of the recent agreement.
Don't get me wrong. I do it because Prime has shit I can't get elsewhere. So I have to on some levels. But I don't unless I have to to get what I need to do what I do.
Doesn't matter. We're all gonna die in that decade we're now well into my original prediction. Baking the planet, inventing viruses bro-/tech-/etc.-, Closed Source AI, etc. etc.
2030: We're all gonna die.
Sometimes I do what I call "time travelling" where I pirate first with the intention to buy later when it's cheaper.
I don't agree that it is 'morally correct' to pay $20 for a shitty movie that cost over $100 million to make when that money could have gone to fund 5 much smaller, much better movies just so the studio could shovel money into their Scrooge McDuck moneybin with yet another multimedia tie-in.
So you refund me if you take it away?
It should be noted that Amazon was among the first to prove that buying isn't owning a few years ago when a book that many people had legally bought was automatically scrubbed feom devices. The title had been removed from the catalog, and any kindle which held it automatically removed it without the users concent, and they were given amazon store credit in return.
This would be illegal in most EU countries.
This SHOULD be illegal in EVERY country.
You just can't see the microscopic "for" in "OWN IT ^for NOW"
"I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further"
I am on the belief that once I buy something, let's say Spiderman No Way Home, on streaming services, I am entitled to download it offline from anywhere for my own Jellyfin.
No one, or even biggest corp, can change my view.
"Own it now!"
No thanks!
Not even worth pirating.
Not that I'd actually want to own any DCU movie, but yeah, that's just patently false.
Probably intentional so they can change the definition of "own"
Own the temporary license.
So it's basically an NFT.
"Feel like you own it NOW"
"...for NOW"
Out already? Can't be long before Radarr delivers it then.
Oh, and Ferrari.
Does Radarr have to be running at the exact moment a site adds it? I notice it auto downloads some things but not others.
Your settings include frequency to search. At least with Prowlarr, you can set that on a per tracker basis iirc.
No, there are no push notifications. I think it uses periodically refreshed RSS feeds
🥸 well you see, you own a digital license to watch the movie so long as we have it available, have you read our terms of agreement--
Agreed that this is scummy marketing, though. The only real way to own media (legally) anymore is through physical copies, and even then maybe there's some provision that makes a DVD illegal due to license shenanigans... but no cop's gonna bust down your door for owning an illegal DVD of Aquaman.
How can they get away with lying like this?
The own* the people who decide what they can get away with.
*as in actually own, not their single-instance redefinition of "own" where it means 'definitely do not own'
You can save up to 77% if you buy now.
you can never save by buying something. I save if I don't buy.
You're playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that "save 77%" is a valid shortening of "save 77% compared to buying at full price" because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. "Save 77% compared to not buying the item" makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn't make you clever.
That said, I agree that "pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to" is dumb.
That is what they pretend it is, but sales like that are intended to be FOMO to convince people who were reluctant to buy 'just in case because it is so cheap'. Like not even someone who balks at the price, just someone doesn't want to risk changing their mind later.
That is how companies entice people to buy things they were not even interested in before the sale.
The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing.
Sure, but that's the assumption created by the advertisement. If you're debating buying something, and the ad says "You can save up to 77% if you buy now" then suddenly the presupposition is (sneakily!) introduced that you are going to buy it. In that case, identifying and rejecting the presupposition is the smarter thing to do.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWHAHAHAHAHQHAHAHAHAHAHQHQHhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah……………..
this is why i still buy cds and dvds
I definitely do not value having lifetime access to 99.999% of the media I consume enough to have to deal with hoarding physical copies.
Yep. I still like owning Blu-ray’s for this reason. When I tell people I have a Blu-ray collection they make fun of me.
They didn't cut Amber out, I won't be watching it at any price including free.
Wait, you mean I don't actually own Jason Momoa now? What about my kingdom, do I still own that? (It's hard to tell, since it's lost.)
You merely own a license that allows you to access Jason Momoa.
The full context of the quote is, while yes, the prospect of the complete elimination of private property is terrifying for some people (even socialists), the idea is that in the future, you won't need to own anything and your life will be simpler and theoretically more fulfilling if we're not preoccupied with owning things and keeping up with the Joneses.
but you'll notice that it doesn't say "we'll own nothing and be happy". they're not willing to take the medicine they prescribe for you. they're part of the class that's destined to own everything.
When they say "Own it now" they mean own it through Amazon Prime. I don't like it either but legally that is fine.
Imagine a book store in which you pay for a book, then the book stays on the shelf in their shop, but they have in database that you can rent it whenever you want from them. How is this ownership?
I feel like an outsider on these debates. I totally agree we should be able to own forever.
In my case I find there is so much new TV and movies I rarely go back to re-watch shows or movies so owning them isn't on my radar. It's a challenge just to watch a whole series I find.
I'm wondering how often do people beyond kids re-watch movies and TV shows? Kids seem to be able to rewatch the same movies several times a day..
I rewatch movies ALL THE TIME, especially during Christmas and Halloween. There are a couple of other films that I put on consistently as a comfort watch (The Guest, Dread, etc.). I have watched entirely though all 3 Stargate Series at least 3 times each. My wife and I often rewatch Psych and The office. I have watched through all of the Star Trek series at least 4 times each. I am on my 5th or 6th time through Futurama. I have watched Fringe twice at least. Twice through X-Files. I don't know how many times I have watched Firefly. My wife has been through Friends at least 5 times. And she has watched Murder She Wrote (the entire series) probably 30 times. I have watched Columbo in its entirely no less than 3 times.
While I am the same way with games, there should be a clear distinction between owning something and access to something with clearly defined limitations.
Some shows I watch once, but I am rewatching Futurama for probably the 20th time or so. Sometimes it is nice to revisit familiar things.
For me it's preparing for future nostalgia, I want to be able to just "have it' to look back on. It may sound strange to some people I guess but I can't properly get "invested" in a show/movie/game without the knowledge that I'll be able to rewatch it again, maybe at some point when I'm in my 80s and feel nostalgic about it. It's a major barrier to my enjoyment in the present. It's like why people take photos of things. 99% of what I would torrent are things I have access to now, that I would happily pay through the nose for if I could just own it in a DRM-free format.
I’m wondering how often do people beyond kids re-watch movies and TV shows?
You should become acquainted with The Office fandom. Some of them have it on permanent repeat.
If they're saying "own" on their advertisements then they should be required to refund you when they eventually have to take it away. I'm pretty sure "ownership" has a legal definition and it's probably not too ambiguous.
It should at least be considered false advertising if they can't guarantee access permanently.
That's the best part
They redefine "own" and "buy" in their TOS
And so do many many other online retailers that sell digital goods
I wonder if that would hold in court. They could simply use "rent" or "lease" in their ads, but they purposely are trying to mislead to imply permanence.
Then it's not binding and they're just waiting for the class action. Which will win, but they'll still be richer in the end.
This is modern alchemy trying to turn lead into gold. Just change the meaning of the magic words et voilá you make gold while the other party is robbed blind and can't do anything about it after the fact.
And of course, it's totally legal and totally cool.
ok that makes me sick
Refunding the sale price is still theft. If it was only worth that much to me (zero surplus), then I wouldn't have bothered with the trade in the first place. The only things worth buying are worth more to you than the sale price.
Oh I had never thought of this or come across this concept! That's a really elegant concept. Of course, in a transaction you're putting in more effort than the money. The time it takes you to go through the purchase, the research, the cost of opportunity of that money... meaning those have to be covered in the cost of the transaction, and therefore the goods must be cheaper than the perceived value by those amounts.
You've sent me down a rabbit hole and I thank you for that. Now I'm off to read about economics 🤓
Oh, whoops. I read it as them explicitly telling me to pirate it. Yeah of course they aren't going to let you actually own it. That doesn't come close to making sense.
"rent a license for 15 years"