this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
665 points (99.4% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

61800 readers
154 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As always, the paying user has the worst experience. "Purchase" a show, can only watch on a certain console of a certain brand, no transfers, no backups, then it suddenly disappears from the library and nothing can be done.

If media companies insist on draconian DRM, then they should pay for full refunds to their loyal customers when one day they decide to delist that specific show.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stretch2m@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm sure they covered this in the terms of service that they know no one ever reads.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 10 points 2 years ago

In many countries that wont work. The Terms of service need to only include reasonable and expectable clauses, as they are not negotionable.

And "purchase doesnt mean ownership, we take it from you anytime we want" is neither reasonable nor expectable.

Also this should run under criminal fraud imo. The customers were deliberately deceived by the term "purchase" into believing they would be granted ownership.