https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/apple-faces-clas…
I've often been shouted down on OzBargain when I've commented in digital store deals that you don't really "own" the stuff they "sell" for you to "buy". I'm glad at least one other person in the world feels the same way I do. I still buy some games on Xbox and Playstation digitally, but only if they are heavily discounted, but more often than not, they are more expensive than buying the disc version.
Me too
regardless of Apple's terms and conditions
Spoiler: he wont.
I hope he does too but.
Wonder why they terminated his account?
From the article:
Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely. But US District Court Judge John Mendez wasn’t buying it, as first noticed by the Hollywood Reporter. He rejected a motion filed by Apple that sought to dismiss the suit. That means the suit can move forward with its claims of false advertising and unfair competition, though it could still be settled before going to trial.
Streaming services like Netflix are rentals, app stores should not be considered the same.
I expect Apple will throw enough money at the plaintiff that we won’t get the outcome we all need. Hopefully they’re not suing for the money and will push for a court ruling.
Without obviously knows all the detail of this guy's case, I've often wondered about this very thing.
For this reason I don't buy much digital content. I've purchased the odd movie for the kids via YouTube, but certainly nothing like $25,000 worth … probably more like $25 worth.
The defence of "no reasonable consumer would believe that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely" is just egregious (at least in the absence of other directly relevant information). To my mind, the definitions of and differences between "buy" and "rent" are pretty farking obvious.
The old "no reasonable person" defence can take you quite far in 'Murica. Fox News and Tucker Carlsons lawyers successfully argued that no reasonable person would believe the things that Tucker says on Fox News were true. Therefore, when he went on national tv and said Karen McDougal was extorting money from the president, it wasn't actually slander.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-c…
Yeah, they claim it is “opinion” not “news”. I have to agree that the “no reasonable person” argument, is true, but no reasonable person would be watching that trash in the first place. Unfortunately these morons also have guns.
I did like the National Inquiry guy’s defence. If you have the dollar to buy the magazine, and you can read, then you shouldn’t believe anything that is in the NI anyway.
Way I see it is you are buying, or renting, a digital product. If there is no end date stipulated, it should be indefinite unless agreed upon by both parties.
drm server shuts down. Technically you still have it on your pc/console but unable to unlock it any more.
I personally think unless it says licence sale, all sales are as is, I can make infinite copies, no drm, etc. But LibLab loves sucking on Hollywood.
I’ve bought hundreds of movies and tv shows that I assume are mine to keep. I know in the back of my mind that one day they might shut down the service, but I hope they will make it possible to transfer the material to retain it.
I convert my music to mp3 when I buy it, so it’s always backed up elsewhere, but movies are harder, as I buy usually for the iTunes extras. I believe I am purchasing these to keep indefinitely.
Same. I know one day my movie library might disappear and I'm ok with that. I save so much space by not having a physical collection that I accept this as a trade off.
Thankfully, in my experience when a service shuts down your library is migrated elsewhere. For me, that's meant several digital libraries have merged into Google Play.
Hope this guys wins, regardless of Apple's terms and conditions.