[Arnt]

90% likely, the small print specifies that what was bought was the right to access that file provided that a couple of conditions remain met, and one of the conditions is "until 1. august 2022" or something like that.

You may assume that other streaming companies will do similar things. They're all squeezed between customers who want to pay low prices for the service and rights holders who want high prices for their concent. The rights holders offer a lower price for time-limited access than for permanent access, and the streaming companies take that offer. Film at 11.

[chmod775]

> 90% likely, the small print specifies that what was bought was the right to access that file provided that a couple of conditions remain met, and one of the conditions is "until 1. august 2022" or something like that.

Note that this happened in Germany, where judges generally treat fineprint as "Whatever."* - the way something is communicated and customer's reasonable expectations matter a lot.

* Where fineprint contradicts more prominent text.

[wongarsu]

Moreover, in a world where advertising "purchase this cheese* (contains no actual milk)" is illegal, why would advertising "purchase* this movie (actually a time-limited rental)" be legal? How could that not be deception of the customer?

[gumby]

Note that this happened in Germany, where judges generally treat copyright owners as gods with greater rights than others, even when the copyright owners hurt themselves.