this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
1068 points (97.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54500 readers
328 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):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year 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 201 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 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 136 points 9 months ago (5 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 82 points 9 months 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 51 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] menemen@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (9 children)

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

[–] Arcane_Trixster@lemm.ee 34 points 9 months ago

We have corporate protections in the USA.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

The consumer isn't the last rung on the ladder. We're on the fuckin ground. With footprints on our faces and medical bills to prove it.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months 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 9 months 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 23 points 9 months 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 (2 replies)
[–] krimson@feddit.nl 117 points 9 months ago

Did you click on it? Maybe it links to a torrent :D

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 71 points 9 months ago (6 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!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] rengoku@social.venith.net 58 points 9 months 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 9 months 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 49 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BlueSnail@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It should be noted that Amazon was among the first to prove that buying isn't owning a few years ago when a book that many people had legally bought was automatically scrubbed feom devices. The title had been removed from the catalog, and any kindle which held it automatically removed it without the users concent, and they were given amazon store credit in return.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] centof@lemm.ee 37 points 9 months 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 9 months ago

This is the answer.

All fed regulatory agencies are captured at this point.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Or don't buy it, then pirate it.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months 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 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't call that piracy.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 10 points 9 months ago

100%. That's a backup.

[–] lapommedeterre@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months 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 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

Are people really out here buying a media that can only be viewed through an app? If it's not a file that can be downloaded and viewed elsewhere then I'm definitely not going for it... Who am I kidding? The seas have always been the life for me landlubbers!!

[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 30 points 9 months ago

When you click "buy" or "purchase" on a video on Amazon Prime, you're not actually coming into ownership of that movie of TV show. Instead, you're merely paying for a limited license for “on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time", as warned in the very small print on the company's website.

-- GamesRadar

they can get away apparently because of this very small print.

yarr-har-fiddle-dee-dee/ if you love to sail the seeries of tubes

[–] Ansis@iusearchlinux.fyi 27 points 9 months ago

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

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 21 points 9 months ago

So you refund me if you take it away?

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

this is why i still buy cds and dvds

[–] theedqueen@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (5 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 (5 replies)
[–] Inky@lemmy.ca 11 points 9 months 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.

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 9 months ago

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

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

Probably intentional so they can change the definition of "own"

load more comments
view more: next ›