[xienze]

> It is a purchase -- you have perpetual rights to the content. You don't have perpetual rights to the cloud download.

In this context, they're "supposed" to be one in the same. What good is a right to view content if you can't actually get it?

[Spooky23]

No, it’s not. Folks may assume that because they don’t read the terms of sale.

Apple and others do that to simplify user experience, but rights holders ultimately dictate the terms. No movie studio will ever allow perpetual distribution.

In the case of Apple, they offer a simple solution: download it to your computer.

[danShumway]

> Folks may assume that because they don’t read the terms of sale.

And to who's benefit is it that the terms of sale aren't transparent in the purchase process itself? If consumers broadly don't understand what they're buying, then it needs to be communicated better to them.

Companies are OK with consumers misunderstanding the terms of the license when it comes to migrating people off of physical mediums. Then suddenly it becomes a problem when consumers start complaining about those terms.

But there's an easy solution to stop consumers from complaining about this. Content gets removed off of Spotify and Netflix every day, but broadly consumers understand why. They may not be happy about it, but I don't see thinkpieces claiming that the company has done something wrong. This is because Spotify and Netflix are transparent about what they are selling.

The same isn't true for Apple, because Apple hasn't done a good job explaining to customers what its business model is. And I would guess that part of the reason for that is because if Apple was transparent about what their licenses and DRM actually meant, people would be a lot more wary about buying into that business model. It would be a lot easier to see the competitive advantages that physical mediums and DRM/license free purchases held over digital storefronts.

Consumer confusion here is Apple's fault -- not the consumer's.

[lukeschlather]

> No movie studio will ever allow perpetual distribution.

"Buy" on a cloud service like this should mean a license to download the content for the duration of its copyright. The movie studios obviously want to double dip but there's no reason to capitulate on such an unfair arrangement.

[TheCoelacanth]

They assume that because of the misleading use of the term "Purchase".

[ceejayoz]

> What good is a right to view content if you can't actually get it?

The same issue would present itself if I scratched a DVD in my library, right?

[quickben]

I think it's more of a case where the guy that sold you the dvds scratches them all while they are in your storage.

[im3w1l]

It's more of a case of the dvd seller offering a service where they will almost but not quite always replace scratched dvds with new ones free off charge and people becoming reliant on that.

[jboy55]

To add details.

The DVD seller isn't making the copy, but requesting them from the original manufacturer. The DVD seller telling the purchaser that this service is contingent on the manufacturer providing back up copies free of charge. However, the manufacturer can at any time refuse, if they no longer make them, or no longer wish to support it.

Its probably not Apple's decision to limit the download, it most likely the original rights holder.

[miracle2k]

More like : You don't want to store the DVD yourself so you tell the seller to keep it and you come pick it up whenever you watch it.

[baddox]

Except that the DVDs would be in the seller’s storage.