this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
997 points (97.3% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

61800 readers
163 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
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 184 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 130 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 45 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The people who can afford to fight this kind of court case have no interest in doing so.

[–] menemen@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Don't you have customer protection NGOs in the USA?

[–] Arcane_Trixster@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago

We have corporate protections in the USA.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I can't believe you were able to ask that with a straight face

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Anything holds in court when you have more money than several small nations combined.

load more comments (1 replies)

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.

[–] AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They actually never mention the idea of you owning content in their tos https://www.primevideo.com/help?nodeId=202095490&view-type=content-only

It's "purchased digital content"

(iii) purchase Digital Content for on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time ("Purchased Digital Content")

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] explodicle@local106.com 33 points 1 year ago (15 children)

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.

[–] Jrockwar@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago

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 🤓

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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!

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rengoku@social.venith.net 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] miss_brainfarts@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Downloading stuff like this for personal use is in fact perfectly legal in many countries

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Nobody with enough money has sued... Yet...

[–] MudMan@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

A digital license is a license, not a purchase.

Stop repeating copyright cartel propaganda.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That sounds more like what class action lawsuit is supposed to be for.

[–] BlueSnail@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Ross Scott of Accursed Farms is planning a lawsuit for something similar https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-crew/servers-shutdown-lawsuit

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

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.

[–] DevilOfDoom@lemmy.one 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or don't buy it, then pirate it.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn't call that piracy.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 13 points 1 year ago

100%. That's a backup.

[–] lapommedeterre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sometimes I do what I call "time travelling" where I pirate first with the intention to buy later when it's cheaper.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I do that too but I call it a "forced demo"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] centof@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

This is the answer.

All fed regulatory agencies are captured at this point.

[–] Ansis@iusearchlinux.fyi 23 points 1 year ago

You just can't see the microscopic "for" in "OWN IT ^for NOW"

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

this is why i still buy cds and dvds

[–] theedqueen@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Inky@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 17 points 1 year ago

So you refund me if you take it away?

[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

"I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further"

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

Not that I'd actually want to own any DCU movie, but yeah, that's just patently false.

[–] ryan@the.coolest.zone 8 points 1 year ago

🥸 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›