Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

nofilmschool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 479 posts

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#21

Post by the_other »

sfgweilr4f wrote: post #14

The old discussions around digital assets resurface again. My perspective is really simple: If I buy something then its mine. If I lease something then its temporary. Buying a lease is actually just leasing. Digital assets are more often just fancy lease agreements. At best you get to keep access to what you paid for when you stop paying. At worst its literally just a lease. The real kicker is you often can't simply…

I have come to think of Spotify only as a discovery/introduction service. It finds me music I like, and I go buy physical media or MP3 from shops that give me downloads in my browser (Bandcamp, Bleep, Boomkat...).

I use it the way I used to use radio and record shops. I’m in my 40s so I grew up at a time where this was common. Record shops were on the high streets in most towns in the UK through the 80s and 90s. In my teens I started to dig deeper, into niche, side street record shops for off-mainstream music. These days, it seems all record shops are on side streets.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#22

Post by franciscop »

thevagrant wrote: post #9
onion2k wrote: post #3

Well, because of the way Apple licenses films from studios, you never really own them. Presumably when Apple adds a film to iTunes for customers to buy they know how long they'll be keeping it on their servers for people to access it. It'll be part of the license. Unless Apple can guarantee that the film will be available after that time (eg Apple negotiated a non-revokable extension that they'll legally bound to tak…

If the customer purchased/bought the movie then Apple should offer a way to download the movie (in the case that Apple removes it from their catalogue). This would ensure customer has the ability to keep their purchase. When I buy something whether ebooks, movies, music then I do not expect it to be removed from access at a later date unless an option for me to store the item is offered.

I wonder how this works internationally and I wish to see more local lawsuits. In Spain for example, if you have access to the original legally (e.g. you buy it, or pay for Netflix), you are legally allowed to make a private copy of it (even if the platform doesn't want/allow you to). It is illegal however to hack the service to make a copy, so it seems that a right is in direct contradiction of a prohibition here and it'd be interesting to see a case like that in my country's court.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#23

Post by Mordisquitos »

simondotau wrote: post #5

you never really own them Controversial take, but does "buying" explicitly mean owning? You never really "own" a movie you buy on blu-ray either—you own the atoms , but not the content which is merely licensed to you as it is with a legal download. The difference between downloads and physical media is actually less characterised by ownership and more by perpetuity of access. The key benefit of blu-ray is that perpet…

But maintaining functioning equipment is within your power if you have sufficient technical ability—maintaining a functional streaming site is not, regardless of your ability.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#24

Post by gwd »

hyperman1 wrote: post #13

This seams the core of Apple's defence: Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items. This strikes at the root of our society's definition of ownership. Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court. This should be ens…

My understanding WRT buying a movie on iTunes was:

1. If you download the movie, you will always have the ability to play the movie you downloaded.

2. As long as Apple has the rights to distribute the movie, you will be able to re-download it again

3. If Apple loses the rights, and you don't have your own backed up copy, it's lost.

It's the same for Audible books; which is why I always d/l and backup any movie or book I buy electronically.

Buying a physical DVD is only #1. If you buy a physical DVD at Walmart or whatever, and then lose it, you can't go back to Walmart and ask for a second DVD; that's a perk of buying an electronic copy.

Compare this to buying a piece of software off a website for $30. You download the installer, install it, and use it. Six months later, the company goes out of business and the website does down. You can still use the software as long as you still have the installed version and/or the installer; but if you lose the installer, you lose access.

I guess the difference is that Apple is purposely blurring the line between "storing stuff in the cloud" and "redownloading" movies. What should really happen is that three months before Apple loses the distribution rights, they should send an email to everyone who's bought the move, telling them to either 1) Download it to their own local hard drive 2) Buy an iCloud subscription and click this button, and Apple will automatically "download" it from iTunes to your iCloud folder on your behalf. (EDIT: Which due to [1], will probably require actually shipping bits over some internal network for each individual user.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.co....

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#25

Post by hyperman1 »

senko wrote: post #6

I've seen the phrase "Own it in {HD/BluRay/4K}" so many times and always cringe. You're just owning a limited license ( extremely limited, in the case of digital goods) to watch. The average HN user can spot the difference and say "of course you don't own it, and in case of streaming, you only have access for as long as the service is around", but that's not what the average consumer sees. "Buy" and "own" have very s…

This 'of course you dont own it' is false. Compare with a book, which you can own. The law makes sure you stil can't distribute limitless copies, even if you own it. But you can inherit a book, lend it out, be sure it stays around after the vendor would rather take it back, even swatting flies as a purposes it wasn't ment for.

Licensing, and specifically the EULA, was popularized by Microsoft, to make sure you didn't get the rights on their software you have on a book. Would you tolerate a book with any of these: Disclaimer of warranty or fitness for purpose; Automatic revocation; Forbidding critique; Monitoring. Presumably you could license books instead of sell them, and add all anti-rights.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#26

Post by wiredfool »

hyperman1 wrote: post #13

This seams the core of Apple's defence: Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items. This strikes at the root of our society's definition of ownership. Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court. This should be ens…

So is the core of this issue that if I "buy" a movie on iTunes (say Kenneth Braunah's Henry V), and they lose the right to distribute it (as they did within the last year), I can no longer watch the movie?

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#27

Post by galad87 »

wiredfool wrote: post #26
hyperman1 wrote: post #13

This seams the core of Apple's defence: Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items. This strikes at the root of our society's definition of ownership. Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court. This should be ens…

So is the core of this issue that if I "buy" a movie on iTunes (say Kenneth Braunah's Henry V), and they lose the right to distribute it (as they did within the last year), I can no longer watch the movie?

If you did not download a copy on your disk, yes you won't be able to download and watch it again.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#29

Post by curt15 »

senko wrote: post #6

I've seen the phrase "Own it in {HD/BluRay/4K}" so many times and always cringe. You're just owning a limited license ( extremely limited, in the case of digital goods) to watch. The average HN user can spot the difference and say "of course you don't own it, and in case of streaming, you only have access for as long as the service is around", but that's not what the average consumer sees. "Buy" and "own" have very s…

I always make a point to refer to subscription-based software like Adobe CC as software rentals, not purchases.
Post reply on HN