Amazon says users don't own content bought on Prime Video

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 65
    I purchase a lot of discounted movies through Apple and always make sure to download them and have backups. The wrinkle in that approach is 4K, where it's not actually possible to download the 4K version. You will get an HD version for the download and then it will stream the 4K version through an internet connection. Maybe this will change in the future, but it certainly makes buying physical media for 4K seem more worthwhile than it did for HD. 
  • Reply 42 of 65
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,080member
    But I get frustrated with steaming services that do not provide a download option - for purchased content, Content which I cannot download may disappear for a myriad of reasons.
    That’s the nature of “streaming services”. You subscribe to a right to play all the content. You aren’t given options to buy a license for specific content.
    Curious which streaming service you use for which you’ve actually purchased licensing of content.
    Amazon. Yes they have a purchase option OR a rental option. Purchase means I own it. Rental means I do not. But I can’t download a purchase on PC.
    Because all you purchased was a license to view, not to transfer to some medium of your own choosing.  Read the fine print of what you agreed to.

    Like many others here, I’m shaking my head at the Rip Van Winkle outrage in this thread generally.  This is nothing new, at all.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 43 of 65
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,383member
    Amazon. Yes they have a purchase option OR a rental option. Purchase means I own it. Rental means I do not. But I can’t download a purchase on PC.
    What Amazon is saying is "You only think you own it." They're saying "there is no own, only rent — short term rent and long term rent."
     
    It is a movie theater variation. You buy a ticket to a movie, as mentioned earlier. You see the movie, you're out. Years ago, movies were a double feature. You came in and missed some or all of the first movie, you stayed until the second showing and left when you felt like it.

    Now you "rent" a movie, with strict limits on accessing it— ie one and done. An Amazon "purchase" is just a movie ticket that let's you see that movie as many times as you like, whenever you like, until they say you can't. That's not the same as owning the movie, only owning the right to view it, within their limitations.

    It's misleading to call it a "purchase". They should be required to clearly say "you're purchasing a ticket allowing multiple views only for as long as we say so" in large bold type before clicking the button. Just like the warnings we saw about unauthorized duplication, distribution, etc., being a federal crime. 

    I've never rented or purchased video from Amazon, nor would I. I did purchase digital music from them years back and downloaded most of it, I think. BUT– I think it may require an Amazon player to hear it. If so, then they could drop support and I might be in a place similar to their Video No Man's Land. I should look into that.

  • Reply 44 of 65
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,067member
    More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

    One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

    User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.
  • Reply 45 of 65
    AppleZulu said:
    More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

    One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

    User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.
    And we'll all be thrilled to have this extra burden added to our daily lives?  Like those stupid "accept cookies" popups that appears on nearly every site since the EU mandated that?

    I think there is a middle ground on this "Buy" button question.  It comes down to corporate intent and their actual behavior.  Apple makes it clear (if you read the terms of use) that "Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."  Notice they aren't saying "we reserve the right to turn off your access to content at our discretion."  They are specifically carving out an exception that says if Apple loses the right to serve the content, you'll lose access.  I am very comfortable with that restriction.  I'm pretty sure Apple will still be selling The Matrix 10 years from now, so if I buy it today Apple will be there for me.

    To make this point clear, Apple is not saying that they can pull your access to The Matrix, for example, if they are still selling that movie.  So, for Apple's case at least, the "buy" button is pretty accurate.  "Rent forever" would be more accurate, but that would confuse some people.
  • Reply 46 of 65
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,067member
    AppleZulu said:
    More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

    One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

    User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.
    And we'll all be thrilled to have this extra burden added to our daily lives?  Like those stupid "accept cookies" popups that appears on nearly every site since the EU mandated that?

    I think there is a middle ground on this "Buy" button question.  It comes down to corporate intent and their actual behavior.  Apple makes it clear (if you read the terms of use) that "Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."  Notice they aren't saying "we reserve the right to turn off your access to content at our discretion."  They are specifically carving out an exception that says if Apple loses the right to serve the content, you'll lose access.  I am very comfortable with that restriction.  I'm pretty sure Apple will still be selling The Matrix 10 years from now, so if I buy it today Apple will be there for me.

    To make this point clear, Apple is not saying that they can pull your access to The Matrix, for example, if they are still selling that movie.  So, for Apple's case at least, the "buy" button is pretty accurate.  "Rent forever" would be more accurate, but that would confuse some people.
    You don't generally deal with user agreements when purchasing individual content items. When you sign up for the account or they make a significant change to the terms, you do deal with it, and most people never read it because it's too much for the average person to fully understand.  If it wasn't being treated by one side as a binding contract, it wouldn't matter. But it is, and the consumer doesn't read it because they want to get at what's being sold and don't have the legal training in contracts, so that is a problem. Making the agreements understandable and then making consumers take a moment to actually read and knowingly agree creates greater accountability for both sides. 

    The extra burden is already in our daily lives. We're just taking it on without knowing what it is. Those "accept cookies" popups are actually kind of eye-opening. Most people have no idea all the tracking and data collection being done as they go about mundane routines. A million years ago, it was weird and awkward when a Radio Shack clerk would ask for your name and address even when you were just trying to buy some AA batteries with cash. Now people give away considerably more than that just by clicking to watch a funny 30-second cat video. People deserve to know not only what they're getting, but what they're giving up in trade. That is actually the fundamental basis of free-trade capitalism. Everybody loves the idea of the free market, but it's not really a free market when so much of it is dominated by one-sided transactions where consumers literally have no idea what the terms of the deal are.
    edited October 2020 randominternetperson
  • Reply 47 of 65
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    AppleZulu said:
    More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

    One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

    User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.
    And we'll all be thrilled to have this extra burden added to our daily lives?  Like those stupid "accept cookies" popups that appears on nearly every site since the EU mandated that?

    I think there is a middle ground on this "Buy" button question.  It comes down to corporate intent and their actual behavior.  Apple makes it clear (if you read the terms of use) that "Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."  Notice they aren't saying "we reserve the right to turn off your access to content at our discretion."  They are specifically carving out an exception that says if Apple loses the right to serve the content, you'll lose access.  I am very comfortable with that restriction.  I'm pretty sure Apple will still be selling The Matrix 10 years from now, so if I buy it today Apple will be there for me.

    To make this point clear, Apple is not saying that they can pull your access to The Matrix, for example, if they are still selling that movie.  So, for Apple's case at least, the "buy" button is pretty accurate.  "Rent forever" would be more accurate, but that would confuse some people.
    Apple goes a step further. With any movie purchased from your iTunes account, a file is actually downloaded to your account and can be backed up to an external HD or on to a recordable disc using a Mac or PC that is logged in to your account. The steps to do this is in the iTunes menu. It's almost like buying music, that can be burned on to a CD. Only with the movie download, the DRM is not stripped out when you do the back up. So the movie download file will only play on the iTunes account that was used to purchase it. It will not play if you transfer it to any other iTunes account. But, if the movie is no longer available in the Apple Store, you can still use your back up of the movie file to re-install it back into your iTunes account and it will play.

    Apple will not stop you from playing any downloaded movie files that resides in the device tied to your iTunes account. Even if the studio no longer allow Apple to sell the movie in their iTunes Store. If you make a back up of the download, it's like buying the DVD. Only you can't loan out your back up of the download and have it play on any device not tied to your iTunes account. Even if your iTunes account is in the cloud, you can use a Mac or PC, log in to your iTunes account and make a back up of all your purchased movies that was downloaded to your account. Or just load the movies file into your Mac or PC iTunes so you can watch the your iTunes movies on it while off line. Now your movie file are backed up in in your Mac or PC. Just in case it disappears from your  cloud iTunes account. Apple can't erase it from your computer. If Apple were to stop the movie from playing in iTunes, there are software (though most likely borderline illegal) that will extract the DRM so you can play the movie using just QT. The DRM is there because of the movie industry, not Apple.  

    This is not too much different that when you rent a movie from the iTunes Store and have the whole movie downloaded into your laptop or iPad for later viewing, like while offline on an airplane for example. People with slow internet connections also do this, to prevent buffering while streaming. Only with the rental, I think you have like 3 days to play it, otherwise it will expire. Or once to start the movie, you can only play it for 24 hours. But with a purchased download of the movie, you can play it for as long as the download exist in your device. Even while offline and it doesn't matter if the movie is no longer available in the iTunes Store for purchase or rental streaming.     


    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 48 of 65
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

    One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

    User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.
    And we'll all be thrilled to have this extra burden added to our daily lives?  Like those stupid "accept cookies" popups that appears on nearly every site since the EU mandated that?

    I think there is a middle ground on this "Buy" button question.  It comes down to corporate intent and their actual behavior.  Apple makes it clear (if you read the terms of use) that "Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."  Notice they aren't saying "we reserve the right to turn off your access to content at our discretion."  They are specifically carving out an exception that says if Apple loses the right to serve the content, you'll lose access.  I am very comfortable with that restriction.  I'm pretty sure Apple will still be selling The Matrix 10 years from now, so if I buy it today Apple will be there for me.

    To make this point clear, Apple is not saying that they can pull your access to The Matrix, for example, if they are still selling that movie.  So, for Apple's case at least, the "buy" button is pretty accurate.  "Rent forever" would be more accurate, but that would confuse some people.
    You don't generally deal with user agreements when purchasing individual content items. When you sign up for the account or they make a significant change to the terms, you do deal with it, and most people never read it because it's too much for the average person to fully understand.  If it wasn't being treated by one side as a binding contract, it wouldn't matter. But it is, and the consumer doesn't read it because they want to get at what's being sold and don't have the legal training in contracts, so that is a problem. Making the agreements understandable and then making consumers take a moment to actually read and knowingly agree creates greater accountability for both sides. 

    The extra burden is already in our daily lives. We're just taking it on without knowing what it is. Those "accept cookies" popups are actually kind of eye-opening. Most people have no idea all the tracking and data collection being done as they go about mundane routines. A million years ago, it was weird and awkward when a Radio Shack clerk would ask for your name and address even when you were just trying to buy some AA batteries with cash. Now people give away considerably more than that just by clicking to watch a funny 30-second cat video. People deserve to know not only what they're getting, but what they're giving up in trade. That is actually the fundamental basis of free-trade capitalism. Everybody loves the idea of the free market, but it's not really a free market when so much of it is dominated by one-sided transactions where consumers literally have no idea what the terms of the deal are.
    I agree with you in principle.  However governments haven't proven very effective in legislating/regulating companies in this area.  Although I'll admit that the standard nutrition box on all food products has been a success. 
  • Reply 49 of 65
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    chasm said:
    crowley said:

    Apple don't even offer a method to back up iTunes purchases made from an Apple TV or an iOS device.  The implication is that they'll always be available.
    This is flatly wrong. Any purchase made on an Apple TV or iOS device can be backed up on other devices, particularly desktop or notebook computers.
    Unless it's buried somewhere Ithat I'm unaware of, you can't transfer a download from AppleTV to any other device.  What you are talking about is downloading on multiple devices, which is hardly the same thing.  If a customer only owns an Apple TV, or a non-Apple smart TV that has Apple TV built in, and does not own any iTunes-running devices, then they are unable to backup from it.

    iOS you can probably still synchronise media to other devices, but that's a big stretch to call it a backup.  Even Apple don't sell laptops as backup solutions for iOS devices, they sell external drives as backup solutions.  And again, unless it's buried somewhere, there's no out of the box way to backup media content from an iOS device to a backup solution.

    I'm pretty sure you knew all this already.
  • Reply 50 of 65
    shaminoshamino Posts: 529member
    lkrupp said:
    We went through this back in Napster days. People tried to argue they “owned” the music they “bought” on record, tape, or CD. Therefore they could “share” their “property” as they saw fit. That kind of logic lead to DRM and the DCMA. Read the fine print will you.
    *Sigh*.  And those of us who actually read the copyright law found that it distinguishes between the copyright owner and the owner of a copy.

    The copyright owner can duplicate and redistribute the work without restriction.

    The owner of a copy can not duplicate the work, but he owns the copy he paid for.  And he can sell or give away that copy (providing that he does not retain any "backup" copy, of course - that would be duplication.)

    Nobody was ever prosecuted or even accused over reselling a purchased copy.  All of those suits were (correctly) about making copies for redistribution.
  • Reply 51 of 65
    shaminoshamino Posts: 529member
    Joer293 said:
    And for all of those people who claim Best Buy can’t come to your house and take your ability to watch a DVD away. Well, that’s exactly what Circuit City did with their divx DVD’s. (Circuit City was Best Buy 20 years ago for those who are to young to recall). I had a whole stack of DVD’s I paid for, no longer able to play because circuit city decided that’s what they wanted to do. 
    Actually, it's the exact same thing.  The DivX format was a physical-media rental system, no different in concept from RedBox.  You have a limited-time license to view it, afterwards you must pay again to watch it again.  The only difference between it and RedBox is that you don't have to physically return the disc, but you still must pay again if you want to watch it again.

    Yes, you could also "purchase" a DivX disc for unlimited playback, but the system still requires access to the DRM server to authorize each play, so when the company went out of business, the server was turned off and the discs stopped working.

    I think I criticized the system at the time for exactly that reason - that you're always at the mercy of the DRM server.  Just like all the people who bought music wrapped with Microsoft's DRM.  And what I'm sure will eventually happen to everybody who has music purchased with Apple FairPlay DRM.  Whenever there's a third-party gatekeeper, you have no actual rights, no matter how nice the marketing department makes it seem.

    In contrast, an actual DVD or BluRay disc doesn't require access to any central server. If it plays today, it will play for as long as the media (and player) physically survive.  Your player can be permanently disconnected from the Internet and it won't affect playback one bit (aside from being unable to access some web-based bonus content.)
    davidw said:
    Apple goes a step further. With any movie purchased from your iTunes account, a file is actually downloaded to your account and can be backed up to an external HD or on to a recordable disc using a Mac or PC that is logged in to your account. The steps to do this is in the iTunes menu. It's almost like buying music, that can be burned on to a CD. Only with the movie download, the DRM is not stripped out when you do the back up. So the movie download file will only play on the iTunes account that was used to purchase it. It will not play if you transfer it to any other iTunes account. But, if the movie is no longer available in the Apple Store, you can still use your back up of the movie file to re-install it back into your iTunes account and it will play.
    Yes, but if Apple ever turns off that DRM server, your downloaded movie will never play again.  Just like all those people who "bought" DivX movies or Microsoft "Plays For Sure" music.

    The only reason I'm willing to purchase digital music from Apple and Amazon is that they don't DRM-wrap their audio files.  So I can play those AAC or MP3 files on any computer at any time in the future and nothing Amazon or Apple can do will break them.  But this is not the case with movie content.
    crowley said:
    Unless it's buried somewhere Ithat I'm unaware of, you can't transfer a download from AppleTV to any other device.  What you are talking about is downloading on multiple devices, which is hardly the same thing.  If a customer only owns an Apple TV, or a non-Apple smart TV that has Apple TV built in, and does not own any iTunes-running devices, then they are unable to backup from it.
    Absolutely true, but I think it's a contrived case.  I doubt there are many AppleTV owners that don't also own a computer.  iTunes is a free download for Windows and every Mac includes apps to access the store.  So it is merely an inconvenience, not an inability to do anything.
  • Reply 52 of 65
    Amazon actually state many times in their Terms of Service that people own the content they purchase through Amazon. Right here, for example, in the very snippet that Amazon is now trying to claim suggests that people don't own their purchased content:

    [quote]i. Availability of Purchased Digital Content. Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions or for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming.[/quote]

    That's from Amazon's Terms of Service. The legal definition of Purchase means that the purchaser becomes the full owner of whatever they purchased:

    https://thelawdictionary.org/purchase/
    [quote]The word “purchase” is used in law in contradistinction to “descent,” and means any other mode of acquiring real property than by the common course of in- heritance. But it is also much used in its more restricted vernacular sense, (that of buying for a sum of money,) especially in modern law literature; and this is universally its application to the case of chattels.[/quote]

    So, in that ToS snippet, Amazon affirm three times over that people own their "purchased digital content" bought through Amazon's Prime service.

    As the top courts of many countries have ruled, purchasing digital goods isn't any different than purchasing physical goods, and goods can be tangible or intangible. Whether you buy a digital video game, movie, book, or anything else, you become the owner of that digital product, just as if you bought a physical copy.

    A crash-course on digital goods ownership here: Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 53 of 65
    NixF said:
    That's from Amazon's Terms of Service. The legal definition of Purchase means that the purchaser becomes the full owner of whatever they purchased:

    https://thelawdictionary.org/purchase/
    [quote]The word “purchase” is used in law in contradistinction to “descent,” and means any other mode of acquiring real property than by the common course of in- heritance. But it is also much used in its more restricted vernacular sense, (that of buying for a sum of money,) especially in modern law literature; and this is universally its application to the case of chattels.[/quote]

    So, in that ToS snippet, Amazon affirm three times over that people own their "purchased digital content" bought through Amazon's Prime service.

    And what you "purchased" was a license - not a physical product.  And the license has contract/agreement.  And at purchase (or time of creating the account), you agreed to that license contract/agreement.

    Purchases do not have to be a physical product (goods).  Your purchase can be physical goods, services, licenses, etc.  If you paid someone to mow your yard and the did, does that mean they are obligated to mow your yard forever?  It depends on the agreement!
  • Reply 54 of 65
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    shamino said:
    Joer293 said:
    And for all of those people who claim Best Buy can’t come to your house and take your ability to watch a DVD away. Well, that’s exactly what Circuit City did with their divx DVD’s. (Circuit City was Best Buy 20 years ago for those who are to young to recall). I had a whole stack of DVD’s I paid for, no longer able to play because circuit city decided that’s what they wanted to do. 
    Actually, it's the exact same thing.  The DivX format was a physical-media rental system, no different in concept from RedBox.  You have a limited-time license to view it, afterwards you must pay again to watch it again.  The only difference between it and RedBox is that you don't have to physically return the disc, but you still must pay again if you want to watch it again.

    Yes, you could also "purchase" a DivX disc for unlimited playback, but the system still requires access to the DRM server to authorize each play, so when the company went out of business, the server was turned off and the discs stopped working.

    I think I criticized the system at the time for exactly that reason - that you're always at the mercy of the DRM server.  Just like all the people who bought music wrapped with Microsoft's DRM.  And what I'm sure will eventually happen to everybody who has music purchased with Apple FairPlay DRM.  Whenever there's a third-party gatekeeper, you have no actual rights, no matter how nice the marketing department makes it seem.

    In contrast, an actual DVD or BluRay disc doesn't require access to any central server. If it plays today, it will play for as long as the media (and player) physically survive.  Your player can be permanently disconnected from the Internet and it won't affect playback one bit (aside from being unable to access some web-based bonus content.)
    davidw said:
    Apple goes a step further. With any movie purchased from your iTunes account, a file is actually downloaded to your account and can be backed up to an external HD or on to a recordable disc using a Mac or PC that is logged in to your account. The steps to do this is in the iTunes menu. It's almost like buying music, that can be burned on to a CD. Only with the movie download, the DRM is not stripped out when you do the back up. So the movie download file will only play on the iTunes account that was used to purchase it. It will not play if you transfer it to any other iTunes account. But, if the movie is no longer available in the Apple Store, you can still use your back up of the movie file to re-install it back into your iTunes account and it will play.
    Yes, but if Apple ever turns off that DRM server, your downloaded movie will never play again.  Just like all those people who "bought" DivX movies or Microsoft "Plays For Sure" music.

    The only reason I'm willing to purchase digital music from Apple and Amazon is that they don't DRM-wrap their audio files.  So I can play those AAC or MP3 files on any computer at any time in the future and nothing Amazon or Apple can do will break them.  But this is not the case with movie content.
    crowley said:
    Unless it's buried somewhere Ithat I'm unaware of, you can't transfer a download from AppleTV to any other device.  What you are talking about is downloading on multiple devices, which is hardly the same thing.  If a customer only owns an Apple TV, or a non-Apple smart TV that has Apple TV built in, and does not own any iTunes-running devices, then they are unable to backup from it.
    Absolutely true, but I think it's a contrived case.  I doubt there are many AppleTV owners that don't also own a computer.  iTunes is a free download for Windows and every Mac includes apps to access the store.  So it is merely an inconvenience, not an inability to do anything.

    There were many software available to remove MS PlayForSure DRM, even before MS stopped using it. In fact, if I recall, one of the reason why MS stopped offering their PlayForSure DRM was that it was so easy to do, that everyone was removing the DRM. Thus PlayForSure offered no copyright protection at all. I'll venture to say that no one that wanted to keep their music, lost any PlayForSure DRM protected music, when MS stopped supporting the DRM. 

    Apple, from day one of iTunes, has alway allowed you to remove the DRM from their iTunes purchased music and even provided the method to do it from inside iTunes. All one had to do was to burn a lossless CD that will play on any CD player and the music on that CD will no longer be protected by any DRM. Then take that CD and import the music back into your iTunes. The only drawback was that at the time, the original DRM file was in 128ACC and even though you created a lossless CD, the quality of music on it was only as good as 128ACC, not true CD quality. 


    Never say never. There are software available that will remove the DRM from the back up downloads of iTunes movie purchases and even rentals. They may not be entirely legal but it's no different that removing the encryption on DVD's, so that DVD's can be copied and backed up. And people make back ups of their DVD's all the time. For sure, if Apple turns off their DRM server, the software to remove the DRM will be legal, as the back up of the iTunes movies with the DRM will be rendered obsolete. The movie itself is still copyright protected.

    Just a couple software that are readily available, that will remove the DRM from iTunes movie download back up files.

    https://www.noteburner.com/itunes-converter/move-and-save-itunes-movies-to-external-hard-drive-for-playback.html

    https://www.dvdfab.cn/resource/drm/drm-protection






  • Reply 55 of 65
    NixFNixF Posts: 2member
    nicholfd said:
    NixF said:
    That's from Amazon's Terms of Service. The legal definition of Purchase means that the purchaser becomes the full owner of whatever they purchased:

    https://thelawdictionary.org/purchase/
    [quote]The word “purchase” is used in law in contradistinction to “descent,” and means any other mode of acquiring real property than by the common course of in- heritance. But it is also much used in its more restricted vernacular sense, (that of buying for a sum of money,) especially in modern law literature; and this is universally its application to the case of chattels.[/quote]

    So, in that ToS snippet, Amazon affirm three times over that people own their "purchased digital content" bought through Amazon's Prime service.

    And what you "purchased" was a license - not a physical product.  And the license has contract/agreement.  And at purchase (or time of creating the account), you agreed to that license contract/agreement.

    Purchases do not have to be a physical product (goods).  Your purchase can be physical goods, services, licenses, etc.  If you paid someone to mow your yard and the did, does that mean they are obligated to mow your yard forever?  It depends on the agreement!
    Actually, Amazon state themselves that what people purchased is "Digital Content", per the phrase: "Availability of Purchased Digital Content". So, we aren't simply talking about a license here. And even if we were, a license is still itself a good and a personal property that is owned by whoever has it with that person being entitled to exercise their ownership rights over it. Also, goods are not necessarily physical. Goods can be tangible (physical) or intangible (not physical but intellectual).

    And Amazon's argument that clicking "OK" on an agreement that they didn't read still counts is dubious, as it doesn't seem to pass the reasonable person or the man on the Clapham omnibus legal tests. It is not even possible for people to read all the agreements they encounter in their digital service activities and so it is unreasonable to expect that there has been any meeting of the minds when someone clicks on the OK, Agree, or I Accept button in a ToS.

    However, a Terms of Service gives the service provider a lot more leverage than an EULA does (as an EULA counts for basically nothing). It is very possible for Amazon to not be liable for continuing the service they've offered while the people who purchase digital content through their service fully own the digital content they purchase. Owning digital content purchased through a service doesn't mean that the service has to continue running forever.

    But with this lawsuit against Amazon, I'm concerned that the plaintiff is representing themselves against Amazon's lawyers. Unless the plaintiff is themselves a legal expert, that might spell disaster for their suit.

    If the plaintiff isn't receiving legal counsel, then I'd wonder if they're serious about this suit, or if it's a hoax staged by Amazon or someone lobbying on behalf of service providers who have made a suit set to fail in order to establish a legal win in favour of service provider claims of non-ownership over digital purchases.
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 56 of 65
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,074member
    crowley said:
    chasm said:
    crowley said:

    Apple don't even offer a method to back up iTunes purchases made from an Apple TV or an iOS device.  The implication is that they'll always be available.
    This is flatly wrong. Any purchase made on an Apple TV or iOS device can be backed up on other devices, particularly desktop or notebook computers.
    Unless it's buried somewhere Ithat I'm unaware of, you can't transfer a download from AppleTV to any other device.  What you are talking about is downloading on multiple devices, which is hardly the same thing.  If a customer only owns an Apple TV, or a non-Apple smart TV that has Apple TV built in, and does not own any iTunes-running devices, then they are unable to backup from it.

    iOS you can probably still synchronise media to other devices, but that's a big stretch to call it a backup.  Even Apple don't sell laptops as backup solutions for iOS devices, they sell external drives as backup solutions.  And again, unless it's buried somewhere, there's no out of the box way to backup media content from an iOS device to a backup solution.

    I'm pretty sure you knew all this already.
    The purchased movie download is not in your Apple TV. The download is in your iTunes account and you can back up that download by logging into your iTunes account with a Mac or PC. There is no transferring of the download from your Apple TV. Just like you can purchase a movie using your iPad, iPhone or computer and watch it on your Apple TV, without transferring anything over to it. Your Apple TV accesses your iTunes account and will see and can play any movie that you purchased using another iDevice. Even from a smart TV with the AppleTV App. 

    FYI- in order to back up your DVD movies, you're going to need a computer. So if you care about backing up your purchased movies, there's no way to do it without a  computer. If you don't care about having back ups, then its shouldn't be an issue that you can't back up a iTunes movie that was purchased using an Apple TV, unless you own a computer. 

    Of course a laptop is a back up solution for iDevices. Just plug your iDevice (using USB) into the laptop, log into your iTunes account, iTunes will see your iDevice and ask if you want to create a back up of it. If you already have  back up files, then iTunes will also give you the option to restore your iDevice from any previous back up file. No extra software or hardware needed. If you want, you can copy your whole iTunes library in your computer, to an external drive or a cloud account.

    Out of the box, an iDevice will back up to your free iCloud account and will do it automatically on a set schedule, if you opt to in the settings menu. But many don't consider that the best back up solution. Plus unless you buy more iCloud space, you'll run out of room in your free account pretty fast.  A better back up solution is to a computer, using iTunes. A desktop is preferred as there's very little chance of it getting it stolen while using at a coffee shop or from your car. But a stay at home laptop will suffice.  

  • Reply 57 of 65
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    So, if I understand what is being said, then "Purchase" really means that it's a "permanent rental" of a movie.  And, if you switch providers or the provider goes belly up then your movie is gonso.   It kinda locks you into Apple or Amazon or whoever you "permanent rented" it from (as well as any future twists they may throw at you).

    Back when I was using an iPhone 5 I purchased some audiobooks from Apple.   Today they are gone.
  • Reply 58 of 65
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:

    The purchased movie download is not in your Apple TV. The download is in your iTunes account and you can back up that download by logging into your iTunes account with a Mac or PC. There is no transferring of the download from your Apple TV. Just like you can purchase a movie using your iPad, iPhone or computer and watch it on your Apple TV, without transferring anything over to it. Your Apple TV accesses your iTunes account and will see and can play any movie that you purchased using another iDevice. Even from a smart TV with the AppleTV App. 
    Yes, but the point is that there is no way of directly backing up content that you've bought on an Apple TV without using another device as the intermediary.  Apple do not have a local backup solution for the Apple TV.
    davidw said:

    FYI- in order to back up your DVD movies, you're going to need a computer. So if you care about backing up your purchased movies, there's no way to do it without a  computer. If you don't care about having back ups, then its shouldn't be an issue that you can't back up a iTunes movie that was purchased using an Apple TV, unless you own a computer. 
    But a DVD is a hard copy that the content provider cannot realistically interfere with.  A license for an iTunes movie on an Apple TV can (theoretically) be revoked at any time, as per the subject of this thread.   If a publisher stops selling a DVD that does not invalidate all existing copies of the DVD that have been sold.  Plus, there are dedicated DVD archive solutions or copiers that do not require a general purpose PC.
    davidw said:

    Of course a laptop is a back up solution for iDevices. Just plug your iDevice (using USB) into the laptop, log into your iTunes account, iTunes will see your iDevice and ask if you want to create a back up of it. If you already have  back up files, then iTunes will also give you the option to restore your iDevice from any previous back up file. No extra software or hardware needed. If you want, you can copy your whole iTunes library in your computer, to an external drive or a cloud account.
    You misunderstand.  I'm not saying that you can't backup iTunes content via a Mac or PC, but that it is unreasonable to require a Mac or PC to backup content bought on an Apple TV or iDevice.   A $150 purchase should not require a $1000 purchase in order to backup content when commodity storage that should be able to do the job is much cheaper.
    davidw said:

    Out of the box, an iDevice will back up to your free iCloud account and will do it automatically on a set schedule, if you opt to in the settings menu. But many don't consider that the best back up solution. Plus unless you buy more iCloud space, you'll run out of room in your free account pretty fast.  A better back up solution is to a computer, using iTunes. A desktop is preferred as there's very little chance of it getting it stolen while using at a coffee shop or from your car. But a stay at home laptop will suffice.  
    I'm pretty sure it doesn't backup content bought through iTunes.  I could be wrong about that.  But even if I am, that's still a questionable solution that ties you into Apple services.  There should be a local backup option.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 59 of 65
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    Unless it's buried somewhere Ithat I'm unaware of, you can't transfer a download from AppleTV to any other device.  What you are talking about is downloading on multiple devices, which is hardly the same thing.  If a customer only owns an Apple TV, or a non-Apple smart TV that has Apple TV built in, and does not own any iTunes-running devices, then they are unable to backup from it.
    Absolutely true, but I think it's a contrived case.  I doubt there are many AppleTV owners that don't also own a computer.  iTunes is a free download for Windows and every Mac includes apps to access the store.  So it is merely an inconvenience, not an inability to do anything.
    Possibly, but there are an increasing number of people who use an iPhone or an iPad as their primary device, and don't have a Mac or PC.  Apple sell the iPad as a computer replacement.
  • Reply 60 of 65
    Seems to me well first of all that this is complete crap and that this is a giant gray area. Like downloading emulated games if I have a physical copy I can download an emulated game all I want because I have bought and paid for that game. Seems to me like this is the same idea if I pay for something on a digital streaming site should be able to download the content freely as long as I have proof that I have purchased that content in the first place. I don't think the law has been written to actually provide the correct answer for this yet like I said a gray area.
     Not legally, if you download a rom no matter if you own a physical copy or even a download version on a different system it is illegal, because you aren't buying the rights to the game, you are buying the right to a disc containing the game or the right to download a copy from a specific provider, the argument can be made that they should always support said downloads but if they give you notice to download it and that subsequent downloads will not be accessible that's on you at that point
    Find me the court ruling on that judgement.
Sign In or Register to comment.