Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Grieverheart 920 days ago
I don’t completely agree with Rossman here. You are buying the streaming right and not the file. What I agree on though is that they don’t make that clear to their customers.
4 comments

They use terminology such as "purchase" to intentionally lead you to believe that it is a purchase and not renting. Also when they do make it more obvious that it is a license they make you think it is a perpetual license rather than temporary.
This is similar to buying a DVD. You don't buy the right to the video playing on your TV; only the right to play it on your TV from this exact physical disc. If the disc breaks, you have to buy it again.
This has, AFAIK, been ruled not to be the case. You have the right to back up DVDs you legally bought for precisely this reason.
Well, that might depend on where you live. But point being that if your backups also break, you don't have the right to watch the thing any more.
It is possible for your disk and backups to break, or to be stolen, etc. But it’s just an unfortunate thing that can happen to anything you own. It’s different from the corporation taking away the rights of millions of people just because a licence ran out.
That is different. I was making the point that with physical media you don't have an unlimited right to watch forever either.
So am I fine if I stream it from a pirate site rather than downloading it?
Ok fine, I bought the streaming rights. Why do they get to take them away from me randomly and arbitrarily?
> are buying the streaming right and not the file. What I agree on though is that they don’t make that clear to their customers.

No. It’s not a matter of not being clear enough.

If it’s not clear enough, maybe 10-20% of customers would be confused.

I’d bet anything that if we did a survey 80+ percent of users would think that the platform wouldn’t be able to unilaterally revoke their content.

It goes beyond “not clear” and straight into fraud and false advertising.