Lawsuit proceeds over Amazon revoking "purchased" digital movie content | Hacker News Reader

Lawsuit proceeds over Amazon revoking "purchased" digital movie content

twitter.com

15 pointsytpete8 comments

I would agree this is false advertising. When you hit “Buy” on a movie the only reasonable expectation is that you have the digital equivalent of an owned DVD.

When you “Rent” you are given an explicit warning that it is a time bound transaction, so if the same potentially applies to “Buying” a movie a warning should be equally visible and not hidden away in 100 pages of legal jargon.

The entire purpose of putting DRM on media is to retain control of it while allowing access. It's simply infeasible to "buy" anything that's DRM-restricted in any sense we would recognize as "buying". Yes, Amazon engaged in false advertising, but essentially every organization selling anything electronic (including devices) is doing the same right now, and we have to change the law to change that reality

I am beating a dead horse here, but the DMCA (and its international equivalents) is one of the most powerful anti-consumer laws ever created

This would be easily addressed:

1) Content could be transferred to a competing service before pulling the plug. Like, consumer then streams content bought through Amazon from say, Netflix servers. Or some service that specializes in 'out of print' movies / series / games / ebooks etc.

Granted, how to handle the $$ side of that, is a tough question.

2) Allow download of purchased content (and associated DRM keys) to enduser's local device(s).

3) Offer physical media (like, receive BluRays with that content @ nominal cost of pressing & shipping the discs).

Not saying any of the above would be preferred options for enduser or vendor. But it would address the "bought = permanent transfer of some rights" issue.

Otherwise, offering "buy" for content is deceiving the customer imho - hence this lawsuit.

First option makes no sense. It requires a likely expensive dealmaking process with another company, like in your example do the endusers automatically get a free permanent netflix sub to access the content? It's just not workable, and we see that in what should be the obvious case where it should be: Acquisitions. Another recent example of this fuckery was the funimation acquisition by crunchyroll, wherein "bought" content was rendered permanently inaccessible despite users' existing subscriptions rolling over to the new owner. Content licensing to stream is clearly a nightmare

Second option is the best, but obviates the whole purpose of the DRM. Without the DRM, it's basically the bandcamp model, which works great so I'm all for it

Third option is viable too maybe, but increases distribution costs so it's not a perfect replacement (it's also basically the bandcamp model, as buying physical from them also gives a digital download and streaming access)

I don’t understand why the terms of “purchasing” digital content can’t specify a way to access content in the event that a vendor has to stop offering it.

Surely if the content creator is offering it for sale, it should be illegal to disallow use of it after being purchased.

Amazon lost its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, which alleges false advertising. The plaintiffs say most consumers expect "buy" to mean acquire full ownership, not merely obtain a "limited license" which could be revoked later.

The case has been slowly working its way through courts since at least 2020. A similar class-action suit is pending against the Apple iTunes store as well.

Perhaps this will be an unpopular opinion but I would like to see this go a step further. If I paid for a digital version of something and later I decide to get a DVD, I should get a significant discount on that DVD or some digital credit that is at least half of what I paid for the digital content.

Agree. Similarly, if I pay for a digital copy, I should be able to download that material onto my personal drive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com