Amazon Users Don't Own Purchased Prime Video Content

[imsounoriginal]

Amazon Argues Users Don't Actually Own Purchased Prime Video Content

The streamer says its terms of use are clear: What viewers are paying for is a limited license.

When an Amazon Prime Video user buys content on the platform, what they're really paying for is a limited license for “on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time” and they're warned of that in the company's terms of use. That's the company's argument for why a lawsuit over hypothetical future deletions of content should be dismissed.

In April, Amanda Caudel sued Amazon for unfair competition and false advertising. She claims the company "secretly reserves the right" to end consumers' access to content purchased through its Prime Video service. She filed her putative class action on behalf of herself and any California residents who purchased video content from the service from April 25, 2016, to present.

On Monday, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss her complaint arguing that she lacks standing to sue because she hasn't been injured — and noting that she's purchased 13 titles on Prime since filing her complaint.

"Plaintiff claims that Defendant Amazon’s Prime Video service, which allows consumers to purchase video content for streaming or download, misleads consumers because sometimes that video content might later become unavailable if a third-party rights’ holder revokes or modifies Amazon’s license," writes attorney David Biderman in the motion, which is posted below. "The Complaint points vaguely to online commentary about this alleged potential harm but does not identify any Prime Video purchase unavailable to Plaintiff herself. In fact, all of the Prime Video content that Plaintiff has ever purchased remains available."

Further, Amazon argues, the site's required user agreements explain that some content may later become unavailable.

"The most relevant agreement here — the Prime Video Terms of Use — is presented to consumers every time they buy digital content on Amazon Prime Video," writes Biderman. "These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons."

Amazon argues it doesn't matter whether Caudel actually bothered to read the fine print.

"An individual does not need to read an agreement in order to be bound by it," writes Biderman. "A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service."

via THR

[dallywhitty]

lol

[levcore]

In other news, water is wet.

[mwynn]

How do you sue, then go and buy more of the product?

[Star Lord]

Curb Your Enthusiasm Theme - YouTube

[Rodney-2187]

I have a lot of digital content, but I probably spent more on past VHS rentals from Blockbuster than my entire digital library. The majority of those digital copies were included with discs and a large amount are from DVDs converted to digital for convenience and/or sometimes to upgrade a DVD to digital HD. Very few were purchased directly from retailers. You can also find cheap digital copies for sale online and this is a good option for me to check out movies I've never seen instead of blind buying a disc.

I guess what I'm saying is I've gotten my money's worth out of digital content. I love physical media and always purchase my favorites on disc, but I just don't understand people who avoid digital content and streaming altogether. You can often "purchase" a digital copy for less than the price of renting a VHS, and streaming services are much cheaper than cable TV.

[Porco Azzurro]

Yes it’s all silly and whatnot, but there maybe is a semblance of a point in that when the sellers of the *licence to view the content* frequently and typically refer to it as ‘purchasing the content’ and ‘purchased content’ one could make the argument it’s a little bit misleading to consumers, in the same way lots of arguably far less confusing things have successfully been argued as such (like infringing logos etc).

I agree with all those saying this is a strong argument for physical media of course, and it’s terrible that, iTunes aside (which still isn’t perfect itself) how difficult/borderline impossible it is to download content you have purchased (...a licence to view!) for most digital services I’m aware of.

I do consider any digital purchase or redemption I make as a bonus/alternative to the ‘real deal’ of a physical release that can’t be arbitrarily (to me) revoked or altered. The debacle of Ultraviolet’s demise in the UK (as much as Warners did put in effort to try and soften the blow with replacement titles and moving it all to google movies) and the continued absence of a comparable system here to the ‘movies anywhere’ system you have in the US is kind of revolting to me.

‘It is what it is’. I’ll enjoy physical media for as long as it’s a thing.

[mwynn]

It has also been argued that you do not own the physical media either.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...opyright.shtml

When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by mwynn

It has also been argued that you do not own the physical media either.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...opyright.shtml

When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.

But as long as I have the necessary hardware, I own the ability to watch that movie whenever I want for as long as the hardware survives. Digital content can be manipulated on the provider side without me having any control or input into that decision. It's entirely out of the consumer's hands.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

But as long as I have the necessary hardware, I own the ability to watch that movie whenever I want for as long as the hardware survives. Digital content can be manipulated on the provider side without me having any control or input into that decision. It's entirely out of the consumer's hands.

Yes and no. The product you are watching on can be altered to remove your ability to watch that product if a copyright claim is made.

[KcMsterpce]

There is no argument about "ownership" from the consumers' standpoint. No one has the right to exclusively own online material.
People don't read the User Agreements...
You don't own ANY content from streaming media. People click "OK" and think that because they pay a price for a movie on iTunes, Apple, Prime, etc... that they then invariably have the same rights to ownership as if they purchased the disc.
NO. No. No. No. NO.
This shouldn't even be a surprise reveal.
When you pay for streaming media (or games that you download), you merely lease the option to use it. Based on the terms of the provider. I can't understand how people even today don't understand this.
Maybe I'm a little more understanding of this, since I am an American living in Korea... 40-60% of the stuff from the U.S. isn't "officially" available here in Korea. But regardless, I actually read the crap that I agree to.
I get frustrated because it seems like 90% of the customers think "I paid $20 for that movie. It's mine now. They won't let me download it now! That's not fair!"
No... they can remove anything they want at any time, it doesn't matter if you paid to watch it zero times, or a hundred.
SMH

[John1701D]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Yes and no. The product you are watching on can be altered to remove your ability to watch that product if a copyright claim is made.

Never connecting it to the internet would solve that right?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Yes and no. The product you are watching on can be altered to remove your ability to watch that product if a copyright claim is made.

Can't really be altered if it's kept disconnected from the Internet to prevent firmware updates. Worst case, it can always be reverted to factory settings.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by John1701D

Never connecting it to the internet would solve that right?

Yes, but then copyright owner could make a claim that the product is no longer valid, and make a claim.

If they really want to they could add DRM to the disc, that would need an internet connection for it to function.

Remember a few years back Disney was thinking of creating rental discs that would degrade over time?
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/di...0video%20store.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Can't really be altered if it's kept disconnected from the Internet to prevent firmware updates. Worst case, it can always be reverted to factory settings.

I have one for that as well. If I wanted to make sure that new software is added, I put it on a new disc and force it or the new disc will not play.

[John1701D]

Originally Posted by mwynn

I have one for that as well. If I wanted to make sure that new software is added, I put it on a new disc and force it or the new disc will not play.

I'm normally 100% anti piracy but heavy handed tactics like that would change my mind. I'd still buy the movie but would then rip the disc or torrent it so as to always have what I paid for.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by John1701D

I'm normally 100% anti piracy but heavy handed tactics like that would change my mind. I'd still buy the movie but would then rip the disc or torrent it so as to always have what I paid for.

Yes which is another can of worms. From the video game side, it has been argued that if I purchase a physical game, I should have the right to keep a digital back up.

If my goal as a company is to created an eco system of constant income, it can be done no matter if the movie is in physical or digital form.

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

But as long as I have the necessary hardware, I own the ability to watch that movie whenever I want for as long as the hardware survives. Digital content can be manipulated on the provider side without me having any control or input into that decision. It's entirely out of the consumer's hands.

Same can be said with your first part about Digital movies.. As long as I download the movie via whatever app allows me to, should be good to go.

As someone who is 100% digital, none of this is news for me

Originally Posted by John1701D

I'm normally 100% anti piracy but heavy handed tactics like that would change my mind. I'd still buy the movie but would then rip the disc or torrent it so as to always have what I paid for.

Same. Went physical, spent too much. Went digital to save space and also spent too much. I'm happy with my digital library, and if anything happens to it, I'll go full pirate.

Originally Posted by mwynn

Yes which is another can of worms. From the video game side, he has been argued that if I purchase a physical game, I should have the right to keep a digital back up.

If my goal as a company is to created an eco system of constant income, it can be done no matter if the movie is in physical or digital form.

The video game digital vs physical argument is even flimsier. The only difference between the 2 is you can resell the disk when you're done. Everything else is identical.

[MazeRunner]

Originally Posted by mwynn

It has also been argued that you do not own the physical media either.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...opyright.shtml

When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.

When I die, I'm getting buried with all of my blu-rays, so I own them if they like it or not.

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by MazeRunner

When I die, I'm getting buried with all of my blu-rays, so I own them if they like it or not.

Hopefully not too many Disney movies...would hate to see them have to dig up your grave to make sure you aren't illegally watching them while not connected to the internet lol