Apple must face lawsuit alleging that 'buying' media on iTunes is misleading

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 66
    JMaille said:

    The judge should have dismissed the lawsuit, he is wasting the time of the court system and taxpayer money.  The lawsuit is nonsense and those arguing otherwise are, from what I can see, simply attacking Apple.  “Buy” is the correct word.  One is exchanging something of value, money, for something else, a limited rights license allowing access to digital media where the terms of the access are specified by the license.  If “buy” is not the correct word, then it might as well be purged from the English language altogether because this doesn’t just apply to digital media delivered electronically.  It applies to almost everything you “buy.”  When you “buy” something you don’t get essentially unlimited rights to the object.  That purchase is limited by the contract terms of the purchase, the law, license terms, etc..  And it’s not just true for purchases of “digital goods” it applies to purchases of physical items as well.  When you “buy” a car you don’t get the right to disassemble and replicate the car and sell those copies.  When you “buy” a home you don’t get the right to just rip it down and put up a shopping center (at least not usually).  There are always, terms, conditions, laws, or licenses limiting your rights with regards to anything you “buy.”

    This is absolutely not a frivolous case and isn't wasting the court's time (as evidenced by a judge).   How many people honestly believe "buy" is simply a case of licensing?  I'm willing to bet your average consumer won't.  They'll look at it and believe they will own that movie in perpetuity - being able to stream and download as many times as they like.  Having read the terms laid out by Apple, it's a confusing mess.  It's been in dire need of an update for years.

    This isn't a case of picking on Apple - this is something that is by-product of having an ID associated with purchased content being taken away.  In this case, it happens to be Apple.  That said, Amazon has been sued for the same thing (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/28/amazon-says-users-dont-own-content-bought-on-prime-video) although I'll be damned if I can find the outcome of the case.

    muthuk_vanalingamionicle
  • Reply 22 of 66
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    Are you stoopid ? Of course you can't "own" a digital product. If Apple go bankrupt tomorrow, where do you think you're going to stream it from ? That's why 100% of the digital music and movie (from every store) is a licence. It's not physical
  • Reply 23 of 66
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,046member
    caskey said:
    mylovino said:
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    mmmmh...though I understand (and actually share) the frustration, I also believe it is out of line to again shoot only at Apple. E.g. I can also not accept that Amazon’s Kindle content follows a similar logic, as actually most of the digital content. Part of the problem might also be the owners of the content itself, they still seem to ignore the lessons from the initial music issue after MP3 saw the light of day.

    So looking forward to the decision of the court here...just pleeeeeease stop being so one-sited, it is essentially an general industry issue, not Apple specific 🙏
    This lawsuit and this article is apple specific because he's specifically suing Apple over the fact that they terminated his iTunes account and removed his access to almost $25,000 worth of content. The problem is industry-wide, but the focus of this article shouldn't be criticized for it's Apple focus. It's simply the circumstances of the case they're reporting on.
    Wrong suit. This suit involves a person claiming to be deceived by Apple stating "Buy" when purchasing a digital download of a movie. He's claiming that he lost access to certain movies that he bought because they were no longer available for streaming on Apples server. 

    The suit you're referring to involves a person whose Apple ID was revoke and thus he lost access to all of his iTunes purchases that were tied to that account.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/20/man-sues-apple-for-terminating-apple-id-with-24k-worth-of-content ;
  • Reply 24 of 66
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    Actually, it’s been this way since music could be purchased on vinyl. There can only be one owner of the music (the musician or recording studio or whoever the rights were transferred to). Buying an album always meant you were licensing the right to play it.

    Example. Buying an album doesn’t mean you can have the cassette as well. Since the move to digital, you album didn’t mean you have the right to download the digital copies. If you lose or damage the album, you have to buy it again. You never had a claim to obtain a new copy at no cost.

    The difference is in perception. You owned a physical copy but you did not own the intellectual property of the content.

    This is the entire music, film, photography, creative industry and it applies to all distributors of media... and it’s been this way likely since before you were born. People’s lack of understanding of this doesn’t change anything.
    edited April 2021 tenthousandthingsforegoneconclusionAppleZulu
  • Reply 25 of 66
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,046member
    Apple is full of crap here and I hope they get hammered. You can’t have a buy or rent option, which they do, but claim that both are essentially renting which is what they’re claiming. 
    You are full of crap. Apple is not claiming that when you "Buy" a movie, you are only renting. That's your ignorant way of seeing it. 

    When you "Buy" a movie on iTunes, Apple gives you the option to download a digital copy of it on to your hard drive. That option is not available when you "rent" a movie. This is what you are "buying". When you "Buy" a movie, you have the option to own a digital copy, along with having the option to stream it to all your devices that are linked to your Apple ID, without having to install the movie on any one of them. (Unless you want to watch the movie offline.) Just need an internet connection. But this streaming option is only available if the movie you bought is still available for streaming on Apple. Apple do not claim that you can stream the movie forever. Content owners has the right to cancel Apple license to stream their contents at any time. Apple knows this thus do not claim that the streaming option is perpetual for the buyer. But the digital download will always be available for you to play. Even after the movie is no longer available for streaming.

    As for the DRM that ties the movie to your Apple ID, that can be easily removed from the download, using more than a dozen available software. Just like removing the DRM on a movie DVD or BluRay disc, so you can make copies to play from a hard drive or for back up. 

    https://www.ukeysoft.com/itunes/remove-drm-convert-m4v-to-mp4.html

    The DRM is a requirement by the movie industry. Just like how the DRM was once required by the music industry, in the early days of buying digital downloaded music. 

    edited April 2021 tenthousandthings
  • Reply 26 of 66
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,288member
    However you feel about the merits of the core beliefs expressed in the lawsuit, picking on Apple is ridiculous. In addition to this being a standard term across the industry, wait till the plaintiffs find out that they don't own any of the music or movies they have ever purchased or recorded in any format, nor any digital books or periodicals, nor even a single piece of software. At best what you have purchased in those cases is a blanket license for personal use, but your rights beyond that use case are extremely limited and enforceable.

    This is going to get tossed.
  • Reply 27 of 66
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    Is this an Apple only problem? How about the Play Store, or Amazon's digital store? 

  • Reply 28 of 66
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,046member
    mark fearing I buy cars and houses  but don’t own them outright until I pay them off. Let’s change a bit of terminology and avoid court fights and calm down.
    Actually you do own them outright. They may be subject to a lien or mortgage but they are your property. The term “buy” does have a legal meaning. Where it resides does not impact ownership. Now had Apple said you only buy a license .... that’s a different animal altogether.
    If there's a lien or mortgage on your property, then you don't own it "outright". Owning property "outright" means that it's completely paid for.  But that's not to say that you can't say that you own the property.  

    But when you "Buy" a movie or music from Apple, you are not only "buying" a license to watch the movie or to listen to the music, you are also "buying" a digital download of that movie or music. Which you own (the digital download). Much like "buying" and owning a DVD, BluRay or CD. Only with a digital download, you have to supply your own physical media. 

    Now not everyone download their digital purchases on to their hard drive when they "Buy" a movie. But that's not on Apple. Though Apple allowing for unlimited free streaming of  purchased movies on any of your devices might account for some of this. But the download is actually your back up, in case the movie is no longer available for streaming on Apple, no matter the reason.  And it's only a back up if you download it before there's any problem with streaming the movie on Apple. Otherwise, once there's a streaming problem, the movie can no longer be downloaded. Just like it's too late to make a back up of your DVD, when it no longer plays. 
    edited April 2021
  • Reply 29 of 66
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    If the content is downloaded to your machine - then it’s yours to view indefinitely. So “buy” sounds like a reasonable summary of the transaction. 

    If you’re relying on “buy” to mean that Apple will provide first the download and then indefinitely provide you a hosted download service to obtain the file again at a later date in the future, then that’s something else entirely, and a bit like asking Sony to send you a fresh DVD just because you happened to lose the one you have. 

    Furthermore, and unlike DVDs, you can actually back-up your media downloads from Apple. In which case “buy” from Apple is actually giving you more than even a traditional store purchase. 
    mbdrake76
  • Reply 30 of 66
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,046member
    mbdrake76 said:
    JMaille said:

    The judge should have dismissed the lawsuit, he is wasting the time of the court system and taxpayer money.  The lawsuit is nonsense and those arguing otherwise are, from what I can see, simply attacking Apple.  “Buy” is the correct word.  One is exchanging something of value, money, for something else, a limited rights license allowing access to digital media where the terms of the access are specified by the license.  If “buy” is not the correct word, then it might as well be purged from the English language altogether because this doesn’t just apply to digital media delivered electronically.  It applies to almost everything you “buy.”  When you “buy” something you don’t get essentially unlimited rights to the object.  That purchase is limited by the contract terms of the purchase, the law, license terms, etc..  And it’s not just true for purchases of “digital goods” it applies to purchases of physical items as well.  When you “buy” a car you don’t get the right to disassemble and replicate the car and sell those copies.  When you “buy” a home you don’t get the right to just rip it down and put up a shopping center (at least not usually).  There are always, terms, conditions, laws, or licenses limiting your rights with regards to anything you “buy.”

    This is absolutely not a frivolous case and isn't wasting the court's time (as evidenced by a judge).   How many people honestly believe "buy" is simply a case of licensing?  I'm willing to bet your average consumer won't.  They'll look at it and believe they will own that movie in perpetuity - being able to stream and download as many times as they like.  Having read the terms laid out by Apple, it's a confusing mess.  It's been in dire need of an update for years.

    This isn't a case of picking on Apple - this is something that is by-product of having an ID associated with purchased content being taken away.  In this case, it happens to be Apple.  That said, Amazon has been sued for the same thing (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/28/amazon-says-users-dont-own-content-bought-on-prime-video) although I'll be damned if I can find the outcome of the case.

    That's not how the question should be posed. The way it should be posed is ........ "How many people honestly believe that when they "Buy" a movie, (be it on a DVD, BluRay or digital download), that they actually own the contents? There are a lot of people that don't understand how licensing works, but most average consumer will know that they don't own the movie. They only own the right to play the movie. They just don't associate that as "licensing". 

    Can you imagine any judge dropping the charges against a person caught selling hundreds of pirated DVD movies at a flea market on the notion that ..... Well, not to many people honestly believe that when they "buy" a DVD, that it's simply a case of licensing. 

    When you "Buy" a movie from iTunes and download it, it's like buying a DVD or BluRay. You can play that download as many times as you want and stream it from your iTunes library to as many of your devices (connected to iTunes) as you want (but only to 5 computers). If you want to remove the DRM so you can play that downloaded movie without the DRM restriction, then a simple software will remove the DRM. Just as simple as removing the DRM (encryption) in a DVD movie. The DRM restriction is required by the movie industry.

    This is not the case where a person lost all his iTunes and app purchases because Apple revoked his Apple ID. This case involves a person that did not download his/her movie purchases, which can be done for all purchases and was just streaming his/her purchases from Apple server. But Apple stop streaming one or several of the movies he/she purchased, for whatever reason. The person believed that "Buy" meant he/she would always be able to stream all of his/her purchases from Apple's servers for as long as he/she wants. Just as it he/she were to "Buy" and own a DVD or BluRay.  But not only does the purchaser not own the contents of his/her purchased movies, neither does Apple. The content owners can terminate Apple license to stream and sell their movies at any time. Which is why Apple stated .......... "...... that content users have already downloaded "can be enjoyed at any time and will not be deleted unless [a user has] chosen to do so."    
  • Reply 31 of 66
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,112member
    What about Starbucks? Don’t they claim that you’re buying a cup of coffee? In actuality you’re only renting it and it gets disposed of. 
    But seriously, with physical media like records, CDs, or books you at least have the right to do with them what you want. Try giving your copy of an ebook to a friend. 
    ZooMigo
  • Reply 32 of 66
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    If the content is downloaded to your machine - then it’s yours to view indefinitely. So “buy” sounds like a reasonable summary of the transaction. 

    If you’re relying on “buy” to mean that Apple will provide first the download and then indefinitely provide you a hosted download service to obtain the file again at a later date in the future, then that’s something else entirely, and a bit like asking Sony to send you a fresh DVD just because you happened to lose the one you have. 

    Furthermore, and unlike DVDs, you can actually back-up your media downloads from Apple. In which case “buy” from Apple is actually giving you more than even a traditional store purchase. 
    Yes, you can backup movies and music with Apple by downloading them - but there are some substantial limitations, particularly with regards to movies.
    edited April 2021
  • Reply 33 of 66
    davidw said:
    mbdrake76 said:
    This is absolutely not a frivolous case and isn't wasting the court's time (as evidenced by a judge).   How many people honestly believe "buy" is simply a case of licensing?  I'm willing to bet your average consumer won't.  They'll look at it and believe they will own that movie in perpetuity - being able to stream and download as many times as they like.  Having read the terms laid out by Apple, it's a confusing mess.  It's been in dire need of an update for years.

    This isn't a case of picking on Apple - this is something that is by-product of having an ID associated with purchased content being taken away.  In this case, it happens to be Apple.  That said, Amazon has been sued for the same thing (https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/28/amazon-says-users-dont-own-content-bought-on-prime-video) although I'll be damned if I can find the outcome of the case.

    That's not how the question should be posed. The way it should be posed is ........ "How many people honestly believe that when they "Buy" a movie, (be it on a DVD, BluRay or digital download), that they actually own the contents? There are a lot of people that don't understand how licensing works, but most average consumer will know that they don't own the movie. They only own the right to play the movie. They just don't associate that as "licensing". 

    Can you imagine any judge dropping the charges against a person caught selling hundreds of pirated DVD movies at a flea market on the notion that ..... Well, not to many people honestly believe that when they "buy" a DVD, that it's simply a case of licensing. 

    When you "Buy" a movie from iTunes and download it, it's like buying a DVD or BluRay. You can play that download as many times as you want and stream it from your iTunes library to as many of your devices (connected to iTunes) as you want (but only to 5 computers). If you want to remove the DRM so you can play that downloaded movie without the DRM restriction, then a simple software will remove the DRM. Just as simple as removing the DRM (encryption) in a DVD movie. The DRM restriction is required by the movie industry.

    This is not the case where a person lost all his iTunes and app purchases because Apple revoked his Apple ID. This case involves a person that did not download his/her movie purchases, which can be done for all purchases and was just streaming his/her purchases from Apple server. But Apple stop streaming one or several of the movies he/she purchased, for whatever reason. The person believed that "Buy" meant he/she would always be able to stream all of his/her purchases from Apple's servers for as long as he/she wants. Just as it he/she were to "Buy" and own a DVD or BluRay.  But not only does the purchaser not own the contents of his/her purchased movies, neither does Apple. The content owners can terminate Apple license to stream and sell their movies at any time. Which is why Apple stated .......... "...... that content users have already downloaded "can be enjoyed at any time and will not be deleted unless [a user has] chosen to do so."    
    Difficult to say, to be honest.  How many people have had to replace a DVD or Blu-Ray for whatever reason?   I don't think anybody is under any illusion that if a Blu-Ray or DVD is lost, the consumer isn't entitled to a replacement from the retailer or the studio.  If the physical media is damaged, at least initially, the retailer will be able to fix that. 
    Going forwards into months and years - not so much. 

    Digital media. especially in the Apple space, is different from physical media in that you can stream and download as often as you like (up to a certain number of devices) providing the distributor allows it.  You don't need to seek permission every time from Apple or the distributor to play a movie stored on physical media (ignoring the whole pain of AACS encryption keys for the moment). 

    In addition to distributors potentially withdrawing content, there have also been cases where people have lost access to their movies because a distributor rolled out an update to an existing title incorrectly - may be changing the title or ID for some reason - yet it is the same movie you've purchased.  Both of these things have happened to me.  A film I purchased just vanished because the distributor went bankrupt.  And thanks to an update from another I  somehow I ended up with two copies of the movie Amelie in iTunes (and charged for both).  So if a distributor/studio mucks things up like that, what recourse is there for the consumer?  Who takes responsibility?  My contract is with Apple, not the distributor.  And also note that a download-only constitutes the movie or TV show up to HD quality - you cannot download and backup 4K titles or iTunes Extras.  Plus Apple's DRM limits the no. of devices it can be played on - physical media doesn't.  And removing DRM isn't legal in many territories - here in the UK, for example, you cannot legally make a backup copy of physical media - with or without DRM.

    I'm also of the opinion that it isn't a realistic expectation in 2021 (in an age of streaming) that everybody should download their entire library of movies for offline backup.  In the same way I don't expect people to make backups of their physical media.  Especially if it is an average consumer (likely not very technical) who owns a low-end Mac, an iPad, an iPhone or Apple TV, or any combination thereof.  Sure, you can download movies to iPhones and iPads, but you cannot for Apple TV which is streaming-only device.  Downloading to iPhones and iPads is more of a convenience for when you're traveling and intend to watch it in an area with poor connectionvity.   And sure, you can backup an entire iPhone and iPad including its contents to a Mac's internal storage - if you have space.  And not many people are going to manage that if they have a large library (it is possible to move local iPhone/iPad backups to external storage, but it's fiddly).

    Heck, even Apple's own marketing states: "Buy. Rent. Watch. All inside the app. Welcome to the new home of thousands of films, including the latest blockbusters from iTunes. Now you can buy, rent and watch, all from inside the app — as well as watch everything you’ve previously purchased from iTunes."  There's no little asterisk there that links to teeny-tiny text with the caveat that the content may not be permanent and one might potentially lose access to their purchased content if a distributor removes it from the store.  The terms and conditions hint at this, but it is in no way as thorough as Amazon Prime who has made it abundantly clear in recent months.  If Apple is going to get a good smacking from a judge, it's going to be there at the very least.

    Just my tuppence.
    edited April 2021 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 66
    mbdrake76 said: Heck, even Apple's own marketing states: "Buy. Rent. Watch. All inside the app. Welcome to the new home of thousands of films, including the latest blockbusters from iTunes. Now you can buy, rent and watch, all from inside the app — as well as watch everything you’ve previously purchased from iTunes."  There's no little asterisk there that links to teeny-tiny text with the caveat that the content may not be permanent and one might potentially lose access to their purchased content if a distributor removes it from the store. 
    It's in the Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions that you have to agree to:

    "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”). You can see Content types available for Redownload in your Home Country at https://support.apple.com/HT204632. Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."

    tenthousandthings
  • Reply 35 of 66
    Huh? Every music title or movie I bought over iTunes is downloaded on my Mac. So essentially, I bought and own it the same way as I'm buying and owning a movie on DVD. Completly different from Amazon. 🤷‍♂️
  • Reply 36 of 66
    People these days...

    I've been buying some content from Apple storefronts for some years now. About two dozen movies, and more books than I care to count. Now, I remember getting thoroughly informed about the terms and conditions of those purchases. I found an Apple support article that explicitly stated that once bought and downloaded, I was responsible for properly storing that content, and backing it up.

    And I was glad I did it. When Apple changed the currency from its storefronts in my country from US dollar to our local currency, a lot of the content providers "couldn't be bothered" to adjust their pricing, and just left our market (for about six months). That was the time I bought my current Mac. My diligence allowed me to enjoy all my purchased content, without pointing angry fingers at others about something that would be my fault.

    I understand that things got easier when Apple revamped some iCloud features to enable Family Sharing. But I am still aware of the terms and conditions. At least one book I've purchased is gone from all listings—including other countries'. That's why I still keep my local storage cache. And that's why it's backed up!

    But then again, I could chose to remain ignorant, and go looking for a judge...
  • Reply 37 of 66
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 403member
    DoomFreak said:
    Apple is full of crap.  It is very misleading to tell users they can purchase something with a "Buy" button and then suggest that they do not own it.  I think they would get a lot less money , if they had a "Use for an unknown amount of time" button.

    They know people think they are buying it.  Purely deceptive.
    I think it’s a matter on syntax for Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, HP, every streaming service, and on and on. It seems contrary to what you post we are in an era of rapid change in terminology because of technology. I doubt Apple or every other digital service of any kind, is trying to ‘scam’ anyone but those living in the 17th century. The word buy seems to cause the trouble. I buy cars and houses  but don’t own them outright until I pay them off. Let’s change a bit of terminology and avoid court fights and calm down.

    Making payments to reach the purchase price is nothing like paying the full, posted price and then later losing the right to drive your car or live in your house. Also, Apple made a very big deal (before launching their own streaming service) about consumers' wanting to own their content, not rent it. The company knows full well what "buy" means, so, in this case, at least, I lean toward the plaintiff's position.
    edited April 2021
  • Reply 38 of 66
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 403member
    JMaille said:

    When you “buy” something you don’t get essentially unlimited rights to the object.... When you “buy” a car you don’t get the right to disassemble and replicate the car and sell those copies. When you “buy” a home you don’t get the right to just rip it down and put up a shopping center (at least not usually). There are always, terms, conditions, laws, or licenses limiting your rights with regards to anything you “buy.”

    When you "buy" a car, the car is yours to do with as you please: drive it, disassemble it, modify it, even resell it at any price you can fetch. A home is purchased with the same freedom (neighborhood association restrictions aside) to remodel, neglect or resell as you wish. That is very different from "leasing" a car or home. The concept of "buying" audio recordings dates back more than a century, and consumers know exactly what that is supposed to mean. Further reproduction, especially for commercial use, has always been illegal, but no distributor ever took away one's LPs because they were used to make a mix tape.
    edited April 2021 fred1
  • Reply 39 of 66
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,002member
    There should probably be more clarity with all this, but it doesn't seem as difficult as it's being made out to be.

    It has always been true that when purchasing copies of recorded content, music, motion pictures, books, etc., it's incumbent on the purchaser to store and maintain that content. For physical media, the seller's responsibility clearly ends when the buyer takes possession. Losing or damaging your physical copy does not create any requirements on the seller to replace it with a new copy, and they're not required to keep titles in stock, just in case. That's why there's a booming business on eBay, reselling out-of-print materials. Also, the seller is not required to replace your physical media for free should they issue an upgraded version. The accountants for the Beatles and Rolling Stones know this fact very well. The upgraded Let it Be will be available no CD, LP and BluRay for purchase everywhere this year, just in time for Christmas!

    In reality, it's not all that different for digital content. You can buy music and video on iTunes, download it and put it on whatever storage device you wish. Apple will probably still have it in stock in their library, too, and if so, you can re-download it again, if you like. It's always been pretty clear to me, however, that my purchase doesn't obligate them to keep it in their library in perpetuity. The owners of copyrighted content are always at liberty to pull it from a store if they don't want to sell it there any longer. This isn't clear to everyone, it seems, so maybe there could be better information provided. Of course, popping up a detailed legal disclaimer or agreement every time someone makes a purchase won't help much, either, because everybody clicks that stuff without reading it. So who knows what the answer is?
  • Reply 40 of 66
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    I won’t side with Apple or the guy who filed the suit. I just think this is a subject that needs to be clarified in the law. Buy has meant one thing for centuries, but now it may mean something else. Or maybe Buy isn’t the word that they should be using. But in this age when a company can sell you something, and then not make it available any more the word is in question. In this age when you can Buy something and later the company can reach into your device and erase it, there is a question whether Buy is the right word. In this age when you can buy something, and keep it, but if the server is shut off it becomes worthless, it’s worth asking if we are in fact Buying things.
    spliff monkeymuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.