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

61–70 of 479 posts

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

#61

Post by AyrtonB »

dhruvrrp wrote: post #39

It's not just Apple, almost all online services charge an extra to buy movies/tv shows compared to renting, even when it's impossible to get that movie out of the online service. So now there is a whole variety of movies/shows you just can't buy ( unless they have a physical release). This is especially problematic for older shows, which don't have physical copies at all. For example, I've recently been trying to pur…

You can get a physical copy here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Yes-Minister-Prime-DVD/dp/...

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

#62

Post by jfoster »

fighterpilot wrote: post #52
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…

> Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely Pretty sure that many people would be led to believe that.

Perhaps Apple should begin explicitly telling consumers for how long they think it's reasonable to expect the content to be there.

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

#63

Post by soneil »

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…

While I personally agree, ownership should be explicit - their defence isn't as silly as it looks. "reasonable belief" is an actual mechanism in english law (the system, not the nation), and the learned behaviours of "buy it on Kindle", "buy it on Steam", etc, do support it.

It's essentially the "times have changed" argument; that the common nomenclature for "purchase a non-exclusive license with no fixed term" is "buy a copy", and "purchase a non-exclusive licence with a fixed term" is "rent a copy". And if that is true for the vast majority of consumers, the argument does hold weight.

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

#64

Post by beefield »

There should be some consumer protection regulation around using words buy, sell, purchase etc. Can you sell what you bought to someone else? If not, you did not buy it. Do yo have root on your device and all it's components? If not, you did not buy it. And so forth. That might make people a bit more aware on the stuff they think buying.

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

#65

Post by hawski »

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…

In some jurisdictions you can make a copy (how to do this is another matter) for your own use, i.e. for backup in case the original medium got unplayable. So then the disk, the box and maybe the purchase confirmation acts as an unlimited time license. At least that's how I remember it worked in Poland.

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

#66

Post by cblconfederate »

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…

Imagine a bank marketing itself as "No reasonable consumer would believe that their deposits will remain in the bank indefinitely"

This is a really awe-inspiring, a complete rejection of the concept of ownership

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

#67

Post by cblconfederate »

fighterpilot wrote: post #52
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…

> Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely Pretty sure that many people would be led to believe that.

I am. Apple needs to prove i m unreasonable

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

#68

Post by teachingassist »

lrvick wrote: post #57

Physical media lets you have privacy without logging when you watch media, what media you consume, how many times you consume it, or how long you consume it. You can enjoy it offline, and in 20 years long after the studio that licensed it is gone. You can give it to a friend or loan it out. Or sell it. It is yours. Meanwhile DRM media we pay full price for, or if the content is only available via streaming we pay for…

> Wii store? Same story. You can no longer access your purchases.

Not really.

You can still play games purchased at the Wii Shop, you just can't re-download them.

[Edited to note: Apparently you can re-download or transfer to a Wii U]

That's not meaningfully different from having one physical copy: you can use the physical copy until the point that it's worn out.

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

#69

Post by SCHiM »

lrvick wrote: post #57

Physical media lets you have privacy without logging when you watch media, what media you consume, how many times you consume it, or how long you consume it. You can enjoy it offline, and in 20 years long after the studio that licensed it is gone. You can give it to a friend or loan it out. Or sell it. It is yours. Meanwhile DRM media we pay full price for, or if the content is only available via streaming we pay for…

Do you think it'd be a good idea to force companies to open source abandonware? We could claw back space from copyright laws, and force companies to remove DRM schemes, open source DRM-ed copyright, servers and any/all assets required to run "the store" locally.

This is analogous to right to repair, DRM "breaking" your property should be banned.

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

#70

Post by wildpeaks »

lrvick wrote: post #57

Physical media lets you have privacy without logging when you watch media, what media you consume, how many times you consume it, or how long you consume it. You can enjoy it offline, and in 20 years long after the studio that licensed it is gone. You can give it to a friend or loan it out. Or sell it. It is yours. Meanwhile DRM media we pay full price for, or if the content is only available via streaming we pay for…

This is why supporting DRM-free stores is important (e.g. Bandcamp for music and GOG for games).
Post reply on HN