Amazon says users don't own content bought on Prime Video
When you purchase a TV show or movie on Amazon Prime Video, you don't actually own it. At least, that's Amazon's argument in an effort to dismiss a lawsuit on Monday.
Credit: Amazon
Amazon on Monday filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging unfair competition and false advertising, per The Hollywood Reporter. That lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, accused Amazon of "secretly" reserving the right to end a consumer's access to Prime content.
In its motion, Amazon claims that the plaintiff in the case, Amanda Caudel, didn't suffer any injury because of its terms of service. The retail giant pointed out that Caudel continued to buy content on Prime since filing the lawsuit in April.
More than that, Amazon argues that its site user agreements clearly state that user's aren't actually purchasing a piece of content. Instead, they're buying a limited license for "on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time."
"The most relevant agreement here -- the Prime Video Terms of Use -- is presented to consumers every time they buy digital content on Amazon Prime Video," Amazon attorney David Biderman wrote in the motion. "These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons."
Additionally, Amazon says that users don't actually need to read the terms of use in order to be bound by it. All they need to do is agree to it, which is part of the sign-up process.
"A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service," Biderman wrote.
Amazon's service isn't the only one that offers "licenses" instead of actual products. In 2019, Microsoft began warning users that they would lose access to books purchased through the Microsoft Store.
It isn't clear what Apple's stance on the issue is. Back in 2018, in response to complaints about disappearing iTunes films, Apple said in a statement that "any movies you've already downloaded can be enjoyed at any time and will not be deleted unless you've chosen to do so."
In its own legal terms, it says that some content "may not be available for Redownload if that content is no longer offered on our Services."
Credit: Amazon
Amazon on Monday filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging unfair competition and false advertising, per The Hollywood Reporter. That lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, accused Amazon of "secretly" reserving the right to end a consumer's access to Prime content.
In its motion, Amazon claims that the plaintiff in the case, Amanda Caudel, didn't suffer any injury because of its terms of service. The retail giant pointed out that Caudel continued to buy content on Prime since filing the lawsuit in April.
More than that, Amazon argues that its site user agreements clearly state that user's aren't actually purchasing a piece of content. Instead, they're buying a limited license for "on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time."
"The most relevant agreement here -- the Prime Video Terms of Use -- is presented to consumers every time they buy digital content on Amazon Prime Video," Amazon attorney David Biderman wrote in the motion. "These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons."
Additionally, Amazon says that users don't actually need to read the terms of use in order to be bound by it. All they need to do is agree to it, which is part of the sign-up process.
"A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service," Biderman wrote.
Amazon's service isn't the only one that offers "licenses" instead of actual products. In 2019, Microsoft began warning users that they would lose access to books purchased through the Microsoft Store.
It isn't clear what Apple's stance on the issue is. Back in 2018, in response to complaints about disappearing iTunes films, Apple said in a statement that "any movies you've already downloaded can be enjoyed at any time and will not be deleted unless you've chosen to do so."
In its own legal terms, it says that some content "may not be available for Redownload if that content is no longer offered on our Services."
Comments
*still handy to remind people - there will be newbs here.
A movie purchased at Apple that the studio has decided it did not want to sell through Apple anymore would be gone the next time I wanted to play it. POOF! Sure, download it. Right. No one does that except maybe to an iPad or iPhone then what good is it? Get a new phone or iPad and the download is gone.
Also, this article is about Prime Video so it’s a little strange you’re trying to throw Apple under the bus.
I rarely purchase digital goods, but when I do backing them up is the literal first thing I do with them. That won’t make them last forever, of course — as with VHS, Beta, Laserdisc and a hundred other formats, the format these purchases are in may no longer work someday, or Apple could go out of business (purchases still need to be authenticated for ownership), the earth’s magnetic polarity could reverse, et al — but the license I have for the personal use for the audio CDs I own, the DVDs and Blu-rays I have, and the digital files I bought from Apple — can be reasonably expected to continue working (for me, at least) for a few decades yet. All of these were not “ownership” purchases, they were limited, personal use licenses. So this concept has been around since at least when records became a thing (I mean originally).
Sorry if you find this shocking. Hopefully you read other agreements/contracts in your life and business more carefully than it would seem you read license agreements.
P.S. I know I said I wouldn't post anything for 48 hours because I made a technical mistake in a post yesterday, but this post is merely a question, I'm not stating anything as fact. So I'm granting myself an exemption on my self-imposed restriction.
That being said it’s quite shitty to pay for a so-called permanent on-demand license only to have the owner of the content yank it. Thankfully this happens very rarely.
My initial comment was meant to be more on the question of ownership vs. licensing.
https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html
"- It is your responsibility not to lose, destroy, or damage Content once downloaded. We encourage you to back up your Content regularly."
"You may be limited in the amount of Content you may download, and some downloaded Content may expire after a given amount of time after downloaded or first played. Certain Content may not be available for download at all."
"You may be able to redownload previously acquired Content (“Redownload”) to your devices that are signed in with the same Apple ID (“Associated Devices”). ... Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."
Seems crystal clear that Apple would make exactly the same argument that Amazon is reported to have made, and the terms of use easily back them up. As everyone in this thread has pointed out, "buying" content online isn't exactly the same as buying a CD, DVD, etc. (It's also not like buying a house or a puppy or a ticket to a concert.)
y