this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54345 readers
667 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

You all remember just a few weeks ago when Sony ripped away a bunch of movies and TV shows people “owned”? This ad is on Amazon. You can’t “own” it on Prime. You can just access it until they lose the license. How can they get away with lying like this?

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If they're saying "own" on their advertisements then they should be required to refund you when they eventually have to take it away. I'm pretty sure "ownership" has a legal definition and it's probably not too ambiguous.
It should at least be considered false advertising if they can't guarantee access permanently.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's the best part

They redefine "own" and "buy" in their TOS

And so do many many other online retailers that sell digital goods

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if that would hold in court. They could simply use "rent" or "lease" in their ads, but they purposely are trying to mislead to imply permanence.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

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

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I used to buy movies on Amazon, assuming it worked like Steam does, where if Steam loses the license to sell it, you still have the ability to play it even if Steam isn't allowed to sell it.

Hell I still have access to the stuff I got back when Steam still sold movies (I honestly miss Steam movies...)

When people started telling me their copies of things they owned were no longer usable once Amazon stopped selling it, I stopped buying.

IF BUYING ISN'T OWNING PIRACY ISN'T STEALING!

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I haven't ran into a situation where any of the digital copies of things I bought have been pulled. So I can't speak to what happened with your friends. But I will say that if you have any purchased digital copies of movies, you should at least setup Movies Anywhere and link all accounts you have. It isn't like how Steam will still allow you to download a pulled game. But it does give you copies of things on multiple sources once linked. So if you got something on Amazon, it would also be linked as "purchased" on other services like Vudu, YouTube/Play Movies, Apple, etc.. It won't apply to everything you have got but would likely cover most big name items.

It used to be marked with the old "Ultraviolet" branding, but when that was shutdown the basic underlying service was transferred to Movies Anywhere. Most of the time you can see which things would count because they have the MA logo. Not great for smaller releases and most shows won't be part of it (atm at least). Though some shows might also show up, as I have seen things from HBO and some other ones.

All that being said. You are very much correct about "buying isn't owning" these days. And even when there is something like MA, there are still thousands of movies and shows that will only ever get a digital "release" from torrents/P2P. Sad that some cool shit will never get a real HD re-master for Blu-ray (let alone streaming). I very much feel that studios should have at best a 10 year window to make whatever sales before the masters should be copied to public archives. If the studios won't do it, then there are more than plenty of people out there that would do the job for the love of keeping old media preserved and accessible. Also bullshit when I try to go the "legal" route and find a show on one service in HD but only in SD on others. It is pretty infuriating to see that in some cases I can only get like season 2 of something on say Vudu for example, but season 1 is seemingly exclusive to Amazon. And one is in HD and the other is only SD.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

I looked at Movies Anywhere and

  • US only
  • Movies bought only (no series, does not support rentals)
  • sounds like they offer a unified interface to multiple providers - but you're saying it unlocks the bought movies on the other platforms? - if it's only a frontend it'd not help in keeping access
[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Johanno@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

This would be illegal in most EU countries.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Out already? Can't be long before Radarr delivers it then.

Oh, and Ferrari.

Does Radarr have to be running at the exact moment a site adds it? I notice it auto downloads some things but not others.

[–] ErwinLottemann@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

no that should not matter it's usually looking at all the searchresults