201–210 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A netflix subscription is access to content, not a purchase of content.
Indeed. And the model makes this very clear too. On Netflix there is a button 'watch', while on iTunes and many others, the button says 'buy', 'purcase' etc. One implies a transaction, the other implies using already accessible content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really surprised to see Apple taking this approach. You'd think they could have come up with something less offensive to their users. This is the exact same line Sidney Powell is using in her defense against Dominion: "'No Reasonable Person' Thought Her Election Fraud Claims Were Fact" [0]. Amused but not surprised to see this from her, I am quite aghast to see this from Apple. The fact is, just like any reasonable p…
You’re right that’s honestly a shitty way for Apple to make a counter argument. I suspect that a large number of Apple customers would see a purchase of a movie on iTunes as equivalent to buying a BluRay or DVD (the price would certainly indicate it), and now Apple is calling them unreasonable. Apples legal team also seems forget that their customers expect them to behave better than the industry in general. No reaso…
Between 5 Suscription Services it would take to get the few TV Shows& Movies I care about, Privacy concerns and unethical behaviour like this i just can't be bothered to look for "legal" sources anymore when any decent private tracker has everything i need in one place anyway.
The content mafia didn't get it with music, until perhaps spotify for a while and now thats beeing split apart again aswell, they don't get it for tv shows and movies either.
IMO it wouldn't matter if they'd used the word "Rent" or "Licence" instead: it would still be unreasonable. Account termination is entirely at Apple's discretion, meaning the term of your "rental" is not known when you actually pay for the content. For most people the term will be "forever", so that is the expectation. It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you l…
Seriously. It's well past time that Congress passes a law explicitly to that effect -- if you lose access to purchased content, whether because your account was terminated or the content was removed, you get 100% refunded. End of story. Any TOS to the contrary are invalid.
How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media? This is a questions a lot of companies don't want you to be thinking about.
More generally, it all comes down to the questions brilliantly formulated by Neal Postman:
https://strawdogs.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/neil-postmans-6-q...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. It's well past time that Congress passes a law explicitly to that effect -- if you lose access to purchased content, whether because your account was terminated or the content was removed, you get 100% refunded. End of story. Any TOS to the contrary are invalid.
Unfortunately, this would probably force them to treat purchase revenue as a liability on the accounting books.
IMO it wouldn't matter if they'd used the word "Rent" or "Licence" instead: it would still be unreasonable. Account termination is entirely at Apple's discretion, meaning the term of your "rental" is not known when you actually pay for the content. For most people the term will be "forever", so that is the expectation. It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you l…
Or at least downgrade your "purchases" to "rental" price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. It's well past time that Congress passes a law explicitly to that effect -- if you lose access to purchased content, whether because your account was terminated or the content was removed, you get 100% refunded. End of story. Any TOS to the contrary are invalid.
Unfortunately, this would probably force them to treat purchase revenue as a liability on the accounting books.
All these "stores" have the same wording in their TOS: "this content is licensed, not sold", et c. They all use the terms "buy", "sale", "purchases", "owned", and other similar words in the UI. There's a clear contradiction here, and they shouldn't get it both ways. It's very obvious (to those who know how FAANG walled gardens work) that it's a rental and contingent upon them not evaporating your account for some stu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the courts are going to look for legality instead of fairness.
I mean, yes, ultimately, but a contract that's aiming to be deceptive or one that imposes extremely punitive measures isn't going to be legal. You could write a contract that says that you can at any point terminate the contract and the other side has to buy you a latest Lamborghini. Like, there's nothing illegal about that in itself, but if the paragraph about the Lamborghini is just mentioned once on page 178 of th…
An example of consideration in a penalty clause like this is AT&T's failed acquisition of T-Mobile US, where the contract forced AT&T to pay $3 billion and give up wireless spectrum when they abandoned the deal. In this case, the consideration was T-Mobile's time and money spent entering the deal in the first place vs. the penalty to AT&T.
It's also worth noting that "unfair" and "deceptive" are not synonymous in their legal definitions. An unfair practice involves terms that are not beneficial to one party and are unreasonable to avoid, while a deceptive practice is one that misleads the party into accepting unreasonable terms.