Streaming is now the most popular way to watch TV, yet many are unaware of what they’re buying. As Reingold's lawsuit points out, paying for content in the streaming era is different from buying media from physical stores. Physical media nets control over your ability to watch stuff for years. But you also had to have retrieved the media from a store (or website) and to have maintained that physical copy, as well the necessary hardware and/or software for playing it. Streaming services can rip purchased content from customers in bulk, but they also offer access to a much broader library that's instantly watchable with technology that most already have (like a TV and Internet).

We can debate the best approach to distributing media. What's clearer is the failure of digital content providers to ensure that customers fully understand they’re paying for access to content, and that this access could be revoked at any time. //

galvanash Seniorius Lurkius
17y
14
Subscriptor++
Is it really that controversial to expect that the word "buy" should have a legally binding meaning? Seems like a pretty simple and straight forward concept to me.

I give you money, you give me a thing. Maybe there are terms binding me as to what I can do with the thing, but assuming I never violate those terms if you can then take the thing away from me I never bought it.

Can we please get a judge to just settle this after like 50 years of this nonsense??? //

SimonRev Ars Praetorian
10y
434
You know, as long as I "bought" a digital asset, I have no ethical compunctions about creating/obtaining a more convenient copy for personal use. I don't do that with rentals.

If Amazon et al tried to provide a "non-fixed term lease" (and yes, I know that is what they really mean with the "buy button"), I would expect to pay roughly 1/2 to 1/3 vs purchasing the physical media. //