Apple facing another lawsuit claiming media purchase buttons are misleading
Apple has been hit with another lawsuit accusing the company of misleading customers into believing they're purchasing -- rather than licensing -- content on iTunes.
Credit: Apple
The class action complaint, lodged Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, goes after the fact that Apple can remove any piece of digital content from a customer's account without prior notice. Although the lawsuit targets the iTunes store, users now purchase content on the Apple TV or Apple Music apps on Apple's modern operating systems.
As the lawsuit contends, digital content sold on Apple's services are licensed to the Cupertino tech giant and, by extension, to customers. Basically, the lawsuit says that this doesn't actually constitute a "sale" of digital goods. As such, it claims that buttons on the iTunes storefront that say "buy" or "purchase" are misleading.
"Reasonable consumers will expect that Defendant is using the words 'Buy' and 'Purchased' throughout the iTunes Store and apps in the same manner as those words are used, and understood, by the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world that speak English," the lawsuit reads. "Rather, the ugly truth is that Defendant does not own all of the Digital Content it purports to sell."
The complaint goes on to claim that a retailer like Best Buy or Target can't enter a customer's home and remove a piece of physical media. It uses this example as an argument against Apple or other tech companies reserving the right to remove digitally purchased content.
It also takes issue with the fact that Apple sells digital licenses to content for as much -- or more -- than similar retailing pricing for physical media in a store.
"Though some consumers may get lucky and never lose access to any of their paid-for media, others may one day find that their Digital Content is now gone forever," the lawsuit says. "Regardless, all consumers have overpaid for the Digital Content because they are not in fact owners of the Digital Content as represented by Defendant, despite having paid the amount of consideration typically tendered to 'Buy' the product."
This is not the first lawsuit to make a similar claim. Back in April, another class action complaint filed in a California court also alleged that the "buy" and "purchase" options on Apple services were misleading. Amazon too is facing a lawsuit along the same lines.
Apple has been accused of removing "owned" user content in the past. In previous cases, it has been either a technical or licensing issue, and generally resolved quickly.
Furthermore, Apple allows downloads of media other than 4K movies, to a Mac or iPhone. Should licenses expire for content, the downloaded content will still play.
ITunes Class Action - License Versus Purchase by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
there are other reasons as well. A copyright may no longer allow a region, for example. There needs to be a way these things are grandfathered in, including something that theoretically won’t work. Somehow, these things need to be in some universal wrapper so they can be used in perpetuity.
I don’t know how far these lawsuits will go but it’s time for all the companies providing streaming music or video to stop using the term ‘buy’. Make it perfectly clear you are only ‘buying' a limited license that can be revoked by the copyright owner.
Likewise, I “bought” an plane trip to Florida. Now, a few weeks later, where is that trip I bought??
Clearly no one is using the term “bought” fairly. Consumers like me have no idea what to expect when we “buy” things now!!
bjt there’s a problem between “buying” a material work, such as a CD, and “buying” a digital representation of that work. When you buy a physical work, it’s understood that you are buying the media, and licensing the work itself. But when you are told you are buying a digital representation, then that meaning changes. Now, you’re being told your buying the work itself, and that’s a problem. Companies shouldn’t use the term “buy” if they mean license. The two are different terms with different meaning. Courts often regard the commonly accepted meaning as the correct one to the consumer.
bjt I accept the concept that we can’t sell copies of what we’ve “bought”, or give them away. No problem there. But when they remove something from the catalog, and tell you it’s no longer available in the store, so that you can’t use it, even if you choose to not delete it, then that’s wrong.
I think most people would assume they buy a copy of something, and it's theirs to keep. But that doesn't mean that the assumption is legally correct. Many people assume they "own" that copy, when in fact they're really selling you a license to use that item. So you aren't actually "buying" that app or song, you're licensing it. And Apple's long claimed you're "buying" the app/song/movie/tv show, which isn't legally the case.
What happens is that the copyright owners can cancel Apple's license to sell their work. When this happens, Apple has no choice but to stop selling the copyrighted work and remove the work from their servers. When this happens, any purchaser that didn't download their purchases to their own device, will lose access to those purchases when they are no longer on Apple servers. Apple has no choice in the matter, as Apple is not the owner of the copyrighted works that they sell.
But this is where Apple can get in trouble and should. When one does a backup of one's device to the iCloud, Apple do not actually copy any purchased movies or music or iBook, if they are still available for download. This way Apple saves a lot of iCloud space for the device owners. When one restore from such a backup, Apple will just re-download those purchases on to the device being restored.
But if between the time one backs up and one use that backup to do a restore, Apple loses the license to sell certain copyrighted works that were in the backup, the owners of the devices will no longer have access to those copyrighted work that they purchased a license for, as Apple would no longer be able to download the work they lost the license to. Even though the purchasers did the right thing and downloaded their purchases on to their devices. That should be on Apple. If one were to back up on to iTunes on a computer, those copyrighted work would be in the computer and can be restored to a new device. They would not need to be download them again from Apple.
But one need to look at the advantages of "buying" downloads of digital movies or music. If one were to buy 1000 CD/DVD/BluRay disc, stored them in their garage and their garage catches on fire and burn all those physical disc. They are out of luck and have to buy all those disc again. They only own the license to those purchases, so long as they still own the physical media that that license came with. Unless they made a backup. But even then, one is not allowed to own a backup copy of copyrighted work on an original disc, if they no longer have that original disc.
But if one were to buy licenses of digital downloads, they can always re-download their purchases, at no cost, providing they are still available for download. And over 99% of the time, they will be. Even if the device that they downloaded their purchases to, was destroyed in a fire. Just try to convince Best Buy or Target, to replace any CD/DVD/BluRay disc that you bought from them and lost in a fire.
Unless Apple agrees to store a copy the purchase on their servers (at no charge), for the consumers that bought a license to it. In which case, if Apple sold 1M licenses of a copyrighted work. they would need to store 1M copies of it on their servers, in order for those 1M purchasers to have access to "their own" copy. Apple would not be able to store just 1 copy (or just a faction of the copies sold) and allow 1M purchasers access to those copies. Apple would essentially be "streaming" that copy and that requires a license from the copyright owner. Which the copyright owners don't have to issue to Apple.
‘’that’s not,right, and it shouldn’t have anything to,do with licensing.
It's more like this. When you "Buy" a digital download of copyrighted works from Apple, Apple allows you to download a copy of what you bought on to your device, for offline access. This is the same as buying a CD/DVD/BR or book from Best Buy. But, Apple will also allow you to stream those copyrighted works online, from their servers (for free), so long as they are still available for streaming. If you download what you bought to your own device, you will always have it. If you don't and choose to just stream it from Apple's servers, (for free) then Apple offers no guarantee that you will always have access to what you bought, on their servers. Apple knows that they do not own the copyrighted works and only have a license to stream those works. A license that can be revoke by the copyright owner. But the copyright owners can not revoke the license you bought, to access their works that are on your device.
The biggest issue with "buying" a digital download is that you can not sell it, like you can when you buy it on a physical media. With movies at least, those digital downloads are tied to your account by way of a DRM. So in order for some one else to play those movies, they must use your account. Or remove the DRM. Which might not be legal, but there are software that will easily do it. Much like removing the DRM in music, when they came with DRM. (Not familiar with the DRM in iBooks.) .
But that DRM is there because the copyright owners requires it, before Apple can sell digital downloads of their works. I don't see any class action lawyers going after the movie industry because the DRM takes away some of the aspect of "Buy", when you purchase digital downloads of movies. The movie industry goal is to do away with consumers owning the physical media, that contains their copyrighted works. 4K is just the beginning.
We already have several generations that have never owned or heard music playing from, a vinyl album. We might already have a generation that have never owned or heard music playing from, a CD. And soon we will have a generation that have never owned or seen a movie playing from, a DVD/BR. (When was the last time you saw a brick and mortar movie rental store?) The same with Edison cylinders, 78 shellac records, reel to reel, 8-track, cassette tapes, VHS, 8mm and laser disc, when they came to an end. The newer generation, for the most part, understands the limitations of "licensing" when they "Buy" downloaded copyrighted material. And they don't care. It's the older generations that grew up owning physical CD/DVD/BluRay and books, that are doing the most complaining about how they are being "deceived" when they "Buy" digital downloads of copyrighted works.
My nephew and niece, (in their early 20's), knows exactly what they are doing when they "Buy" digital download of movies and music and accepts its limits. I helped my nephew pack when he moved to L.A. and he didn't bring one CD with him (not that he owns a lot of CDs to begin with) and has never bought a movie on DVD or BluRay (he does own CD/DVD/BR of software and games). He doesn't even own a player that hooks up to a TV, for those. Even though his computer, iPhone and iPad (along with his Apple TV box.) has access to tons of music and movies. To him, CD/DVD/BR (of movies and music) are like floppy discs.
the problem of whether you’re buying something, or licensing it with some caveats, should be spelled out. Since we’re not buying physical media, and as a result, licensing the work, but are being told that that we are buying an instance of the work itself, then it should be inviolate. Apple is in control of the hardware it plays on, the OS it runs under, and the specs as to how it needs to be programmed. As a result, Apple has a lot of power here. When an entity somewhere withdraws permission to sell a work in some region, as happens more than you think, then those who have already bought it should still be allowed to have a working copy, in perpetuity. We don’t. When someone buys an app that a book, or magazine in 32 bits, then Apple should figure out a way to put that into a 64 bit wrapper so that we, who have upgrade to 64 bits, at Apple’s urging, can still read them. I’ve lost several hundred dollars of that book apps because of that. There’s nothing you can say that can excuse it.