Class Action Lawsuit Targets Movie Ownership (hollywoodreporter.com)
- Reference: 0178866882
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/08/26/0354217/class-action-lawsuit-targets-movie-ownership
- Source link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/prime-video-lawsuit-movie-license-ownership-1236353127/
> On Friday, a proposed class action was filed in Washington federal court against Amazon over a "bait and switch" in which the company allegedly misleads consumers into believing they've purchased content when they're only getting a license to watch, which can be revoked at any time. [...] The lawsuit accuses Amazon, which didn't respond to a request for comment, of misrepresenting the nature of movie and TV transactions during the purchase process. On its website and platform, the company tells consumers they can "buy" a movie. But hidden in a footnote on the confirmation page is fine print that says, "You receive a license to the video and you agree to our terms," the complaint says.
>
> The issue is already before a court. In a 2020 lawsuit alleging unfair competition and false advertising over the practice, Amazon maintained that its use of the word "buy" for digital content isn't deceptive because consumers understand their purchases are subject to licenses. Quoting Webster's Dictionary, it said that the term means "rights to the use or services of payment" rather than perpetual ownership and that its disclosures properly warn people that they may lose access. The court ultimately rebuffed Amazon's bid to dismiss the lawsuit outside of a claim alleging a violation of Washington's unjust enrichment law.
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/prime-video-lawsuit-movie-license-ownership-1236353127/
If you buy a movie, should be able to download it (Score:5, Insightful)
That way you never lose ownership ! Should be considered the same as when buy a movie on DVD. Not sure why anyone would "buy" a movie under these conditions. It's as bad as buying an online line game......
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> ... Not sure why anyone would "buy" a movie under these conditions. ...
Not to bolster Amazon's claim, but I'm aware of the nature of the sale (though I won't say it's OK). When Amazon pulled some books that users had purchased, and deleted them from user devices, ironically including the book 1984 [^1], I *think* users eventually got their money back and Amazon tried to claim they'd never do it again (not that I trust that part). So I expect that any movie purchases through Amazon are likely to stay around for a long while and, if they do get yanked, I'll probably get my mone
Re: (Score:2)
> That way you never lose ownership ! Should be considered the same as when buy a movie on DVD. Not sure why anyone would "buy" a movie under these conditions. It's as bad as buying an online line game......
It's worse for games now, even single player games are coming with always online activation.
Consumer laws need to change to stamp this out before it becomes too abusive.
Re: (Score:1)
> Consumer laws need to change to stamp this out before it becomes too abusive.
the law already makes a difference between buy and rent AFAIK
Re: (Score:2)
As far a I can tell, with most games, even if the storefront is not able to sell new licenses, the user can still download the game as many times as he wants. I could theoretically go and download and play Forza Horizon 2 if I want to, as it is in my library. There are exceptions, though. Just check The Crew.
I do not understand why the licensing deal does not work the same way with movies and books.
Re: (Score:2)
I think games are the biggest risk, already they are digital only without physical copies (maybe a dvd box with a key to unlock the game at best) And there is worse than just losing ownership... I think we are heading to a subscription model for games, you can play it if you pay the monthly fee
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least transfer ownership. i.e. resell it or bequeath it in a will.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about digital game downloads or games that require you to always be online?
Because the licenses for digital games almost never get revoked. Usually that only happens when a publisher is forced to recall a game.
If you have a license for a digital game, you can still re-download from the respective online store it even if the game gets delisted and is no longer for sale.
Always online games are worse as it affects both digital and physical copies. Especially for single player games that unn
You can't by DRM'd stuff (Score:1)
It is about time that idea you can buy something that has been DRM'd was challenged, is simply false advertising. Also it sound like Webster's Dictionary is wrong and should fix their entry, because the average person does not think that something you buy can the be taken back at a later date.
Re: (Score:1)
And it is like this with e.g. music software. If I 'buy a license' for Reaper (good IMO), you get a file that unlocks it without online activation. If I 'buy a license' for Bitwig, and Bitwig's activation servers stop playing ball, I lose my access to software I've paid for. Arguably if I buy something with iLok protection, it is up to me to protect the physical device if my licenses are stored on it. But that sucks too. But in general, if something requires online activation, and the activation servers are
Re: (Score:3)
As a fellow licensee of Reaper and plenty of VSTs, I knowf there are two types of "expirations". One is when your subscription runs out. The other is technical obsolescence. While your purchased perpetual license is still valid, you might find yourself needing to preserve an outdated, unsupported OS and hosting platform to keep things running.
I love perpetual licenses, and "lifetime" licenses. But I know when I buy them that there's still an end date. It's "someday". And a company that goes hard on lifetime
Also related to videogames like the Crew (Score:2)
See Stop Killing Games campaign, but this exact same thing goes for videogames too. If you are tied to some remote server that goes away, game dies even for single player.
Remember how original Xbox One had the initial ideas about preventing game sharing? It only got rolled back because of the noise that caused (and the PS4 "how to share a game" ad), but that's where things are going.
At least the European citizens initiative seems to be going through so some regulation might be forthcoming...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't always buy a DVD or Blu Ray. Sometimes paying for streaming on Amazon is the only option available.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, stop trying to assert your rights and lick the boot!
Re: (Score:2)
So you're going to justify Amazon lying by claiming they can?
What a fucking asshole you are. You're why we can't have nice things.
Re:Just by a DVD if youre that bothered. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Set up an online media library service.
2) Get people to sign up for an auto-renewing annual subscription of $120 to buy access to your library.
3) 20 days in, after you've locked in enough subscriptions, delete all the content in the library except a Flash animation loop of BadgerBadgerBadger, bringing your costs close to $0.00 and your profit close to 100%.
4) Count benjamins while watching internet warriors defend your business practices and argue that product pump-and-dump is the customer's fault for not being a smarty like said internet warriors feel they are.
5) PROFIT!!!
Re: (Score:2)
> Anyone with functioning braincell knows that nothing online is permanent.
No, what anyone with a functioning braincell knows is that "buy" means ownership. Few people buying these movies are aware of the licensing happening behind the scenes by the people who sold them the movie that could invalidate their purchase in a moment.
Purchased a license (Score:1)
Laugh at the lawyers, before fining them $50K each to deter further abuses of court resources.
DVDs are better (Score:2, Insightful)
Like books, once you own a DVD it's yours. No one can take it away, alter it, or prevent you from watching when you want. It's always yours.
If these people are really that short sighted not to understand a digital stream of data coming from someone else is not the same as owning a physical copy, one can only imagine what else their life is like.
Re:DVDs are better (Score:4, Interesting)
In that regard, yes, physical media is better. But there are tradeoffs. Cross-device compatibility comes to mind. You need to haul around a physical player to watch the physical media. Of course you can rip the media and transcode it... but that is less convenient.
I have owned some movies on four formats. I donated hundreds of old school dvds to Goodwill when streaming services offered them, because in all instances the streaming version was near Blu Ray in quality. My library was upgraded for peanuts. The cycle repeated with Blu Ray to HD streaming.
But... we are talking about digital purchases. The value of access to vast libraries for a monthly subscription is astronomical. Easily the best media entertainment bang for our buck that has ever existed. But individual movies, bought for over $10 each for a temporary revocable license? That is not nearly as good a deal.
While I have gladly relinquished my need for physical ownership, I won't buy a release under those conditions. I'll wait until it hits my bundle, thanks.
There's a freedom to giving up the need to own experience. If the thing you'd like to watch stops being available, well... watch something else. And probably be richer for it. The older I get, the less likely I am to rewatch anything. The number of films I'll see again is probably down to a dozen or so. I confirmed that by ripping 300 of my Blu rays to full uncompressed files on my NAS, and then realizing it had been more than a year since I watched any of them.
And my shelves are tastefully free of tacky movie boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
> Of course you can rip the media and transcode it... but that is less convenient.
That's illegal in the US as well btw.
Re: (Score:3)
> Like books, once you own a DVD it's yours. No one can take it away, alter it, or prevent you from watching when you want. It's always yours.
While that is technically correct ("the best kind...") it's legally incorrect.
DVDs use DRM. So, at any time, the copyright holder can revoke your authorization to watch them, even if there's no technical means to prevent you. (That's assuming they ever granted authorization to watch them in the first place, which is actually pretty unclear. Nowhere on a DVD or its case
We need a new word (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not defending Amazon (or anyone else that can revoke access to digital content when the licenses change or the servers get shut down - I'm looking at you Nintendo!). However, it seems to me that we need a new word to describe this type of transaction. It certainly is NOT "buying" the movie, which implies ownership in perpetuity. On the other hand, it isn't "rental", because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time. "Rental" implies that it will be returned to the owner after a defined period of time.
It just sounds like we are long past the time where we need a new word to describe this middle ground of "more than a rental" but "not as permanent as outright ownership" for digital content. That will be far, far, far easier than getting Amazon (and all the other players in this space) to not take advantage of us and a word like this would add an element of "truth in advertising".
Re:We need a new word (Score:5, Interesting)
They could call it a long-period rental. Imagine having to put that on the button.
We don't really need another word. Force them to call it rent if they reserve the right to yank it back, so that it's clear. If they don't like it, they can offer better terms, and then they can put "buy" on the button.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a long term rental. Just with an unspecified return date long into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a long-period rental, paid up front but it must come with a guarantee of a prorated refund in case the title gets yanked before the rental period expires.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are existing words. "Unlock", for example, would serve in this scenario: it implies gaining access with no guarantee that the access is permanent.
Re:We need a new word (Score:5, Insightful)
-- because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time.
Here's the problem. It isn't just a word, it's the fact that the seller wants the buyer to assume that the period is "forever". In many cases, the actual period can't even be determined at the time of sale. It would have to be changed to something like "You are purchasing the right to view this media item until we decide to stop paying royalties for it. Also, you need to keep paying a monthly fee, or you will then lose access to anything purchased through this service. We make no guarantees that this period will even be long enough for you to finish watching it, but it may end up being for your entire lifetime. We also make no guarantees that the membership fee will remain the same price, or even that membership will be available. Good luck!"
Once the proper words are filled in, it will be obvious that the consumer isn't even aware what they are paying for... and that is worthy of a class action suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding lifetimes, I once got a VPN subscription for their lifetime plan which wasn't really, but they at least were explicit by showing prominently on the payment page that by that word they meant 7 years.
Re: (Score:3)
> I'm not defending Amazon (or anyone else that can revoke access to digital content when the licenses change or the servers get shut down - I'm looking at you Nintendo!). However, it seems to me that we need a new word to describe this type of transaction. It certainly is NOT "buying" the movie, which implies ownership in perpetuity. On the other hand, it isn't "rental", because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time. "Rental" implies that it will be returned to the owner after a defined period of time.
> It just sounds like we are long past the time where we need a new word to describe this middle ground of "more than a rental" but "not as permanent as outright ownership" for digital content. That will be far, far, far easier than getting Amazon (and all the other players in this space) to not take advantage of us and a word like this would add an element of "truth in advertising".
We don't need a new word, we've got plenty for when you have paid for a product and don't receive ownership. Rent, lease, hire... but the one you're looking for here is "license".
However "license it today" doesn't sound good on ads and might actually make even the dumbest reality TV junkie think "hey, why am I paying hard earned money for something I don't own".
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly Amazon doesn't want to use the word License, because in order to imply something akin to "buy", they would have to sell a perpetual license and Amazon doesn't want to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
It should say "buy a temporary licence, minimum period X years". Okay the button will be huge, but those are the two things that the consumer needs to know. It's a licence that can and will be revoked, and there is a minimum of X years on it that causes an automatic refund if not met.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lease" probably works the best for the expectation that you're buying an extended use but not forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "license", with an asterisk. You buy a license to watch, and the asterisk explains that this license is valid as long as Amazon can legally provision this movie.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe "license", with an asterisk. You buy a license to watch, and the asterisk explains that this license is valid as long as Amazon can legally provision this movie.
No one would buy under those conditions, because it makes it clear that the license could be revoked tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's either you're being truthful or not. :) If you're being truthful very few will "buy" because it'll be clear you're not buying anything, just renting it indefinitely. Otherwise you can obfuscate the fact you're not buying anything, which is what companies are doing today. Regardless, OP was looking at a word that replaces "buy", and I'm suggesting "license" because that's more accurate. I know full well companies won't do that, they'll trick you and keep saying "buy".
Re: (Score:2)
Which they won't want to do because it will kill their sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was trying to sell some fake patents to Harcourt Fenton Mudd's mother, and she reminded me that unless I presented a fraudulent offer, I might not make a sale to her at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the days when people left their houses to see movies, they purchased a "ticket" that gave them the right to view the picture once.
You're still buying a ticket, though the number of viewings is undefined.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, Apple solved this problem a decade ago with App Store, I don't think we need an exotic solution here.
Re: (Score:2)
> it isn't "rental", because a person has unfettered access to the digital content for an extended period of time.
When renting an apartment or house, aren't we using the word "rental" in exactly the same way? I don't see how the movie situation is "more than a rental."
You own nothing online (Score:2)
At a moment's notice the rules can change and you can be left with nothing. Entire online ecosystems can disappear overnight. Content you have created can be monetized and you get nothing (Reddit, GitHub). Free services can become expensive gated communities.
You have no rights and no ability to change anything. You are the digital equivalent of a serf, and your owner can do anything they like. Get used to it. The only value you have is what income you can create for someone else.
No Amazon, you have not properly warned everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I had no idea that Amazon might lose their license to stream something to which I thought I bought perpetual access!
I'll just pirate next time.
Physical Copies rule (Score:1)
That's why, when I buy some sort of media, I have a physical copy of it somewhere that Amazon doesn't know about. MP3 file on my hard disk, vinyl record on the shelf, DVD, CD, paper book. Then it doesn't matter if Amazon loses its license to carry it, I will still have it. I can watch it as many times as I want, jump up-and-down on it, use it as a coaster, give it to my friend, all because I actually purchased it.
Sometimes I'll rent things. Some show I only want to see once or something that doesn't make s
Have they looked at their computer EULA lately (Score:2)
So many purchases of non-physical items are a revocable license. There's a good chance they didn't use LaTex to create their court filing documents because that software too probably comes with a revocable license to use, not own.
LoB
Physical Forever (Score:1)
The only way for consumers to win is to buy physical copies of media the want to own. Amazon or Disney or any of the streaming services can't come take away your vhs/dvd/bluray/whatever. Do what you want for your own personal use with your physical copy, its yours for however long the media itself lasts before it becomes unreadable or turns to dust. Even then, at least you can make your own backup of your media.
You agree to my terms (Score:3)
I just wanted to remind everyone: you agree to my terms.
I'm told that a few of you supposedly didn't realize that you agree to my terms, so I'm just reminding you.
Yes, it's true that Amazon is lying, but (Score:2)
Well informed customers know that Amazon defines the word "buy" to mean "rent"
Yes, liars deserve to be punished, but the suit won't fix the problem, it will only make the lawyers rich
Buy = mine (Score:3, Interesting)
No, Amazon, "buy" does not imply that you can take it away again. That would be "license" or maybe "lease". Of course, the software world does the same thing, but at least you often see something like "buy a license".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How this was ever acceptable is somewhat beyond me. I'm amazed the Europeans didn't kick up a stink about it - my suspicion is the "general populous" didn't really understand what they were getting into, so it never got pushed up the priority list. Amazon have been generally pretty good at holding on to their catalogue, so 'bought' stuff hasn't disappeared too much for most people (or not so they'd notice, I guess). Even still, I'm amazed it's not been in the news "I bought XYZ movie, and now it's gone!" ty
Re:Buy = mine (Score:4, Interesting)
Its really a case of someone getting the issue before regulators. They've got a lot on their plate.
But yeah, the legalities are obviously off. Amazon will stamp their feet and complain that "Hey its in the contract you signed" , but they are expecting you not to realise tht the "piece of paper" is not the contract, its just a record of the contract. The contract is what the two sides agreed on, and its important that this means what they two sides *think* they agreed on. While amazon *can* put "you agree that your first born heirs soul belongs to amazon" in there, in latin lawyerese, but a judge is gonna say "Hang on, thats not what the customer understood when they clicked the button that said "We totally dont want your firstborn heir!". Judges kinda hate fineprint. The reality is, the usual test is what "a reasonable person" would understand. And I think its pretty fucking stretching it to assume most people would see a "buy it!" button and thinkthebutton doesnt means "buy it!".
Companies have been raked over the coals before for this stuff. Repeatedly. But it really needs the regulators to get on board and say "Hey, honor the fucking agreement you made with the customer or refund the goddamn money" *or we'll force you to*.