Verification: a0d6e82a7952e405

LFHCK a.k.a LiFeHaCK

Will It Stick? The Lawsuit Set to Reshape Prime Video

Published by

TEDDIE

on

Picture this: you spend $19.99 to get a film through Amazon Prime Video. The confirmation shows that you “purchased” it. You unwind, confident that it belongs to you permanently.

One day, it simply disappears. Gone without explanation. Not due to your action of deleting it, but because Amazon no longer holds the permission to broadcast it.

Step into the eerie truth of digital possession—or more accurately, the absence of it.

This week, Amazon has been hit with another class-action lawsuit in a Washington federal courtroom, accused of deceiving Prime Video customers into thinking they have ownership of the films and series they “purchase.”

Actually, what they’re buying is simply a permit. A short-term authorization that may be withdrawn anytime.

ALSO READ:

When “purchase” does not equate to possession

Here’s a rewritten version of the provided text:
To be clear: selecting “Buy” on Prime Video does not equate to owning a film like you would with a physical DVD. Instead, what you receive is permission to watch it online, provided Amazon still holds the necessary licensing. Once this agreement ends, your ability to view the content will also terminate.

Plaintiff

Lisa Reingold,

who initiated the legal action states that she spent $20.79 on a season of

Bella and the Bulldogs

Only to watch it vanish from her collection. She is not isolated. Many users have awakened to discover films they “owned” now missing.

READ THIS:

The small details that nobody bothers to read

Amazon does reveal this information, yet it is presented within obscure legal details written by attorneys that most people overlook. Alternatively, put more accurately, these “terms and conditions” are hidden at the bottom of the page in tiny font, where most shoppers do not bother to go through them.

A solitary sentence on the confirmation screen states: “You are granted a license for the video and you accept our terms.”

The legal case claims this constitutes misleading behavior. After all, the term “buy” in common usage implies outright possession, rather than a “reversible permit dependent on company decisions.”

California lawmakers have reached an agreement: a new regulation prohibits businesses from promoting something as available for sale unless the ownership comes with no restrictions.

Should the lawsuit prevail, Amazon may have to completely reform how it distributes digital products, and possibly compensate harmed consumers.

READ THIS:

The bigger picture

It goes beyond Amazon. It concerns the way we engage with art, narratives, and cultural content in today’s online era.

Gaming enthusiasts have already experienced this pain as Ubisoft shut down servers for

The Crew

removing access from those who had purchased it

This irritation led to the “Stop Destroying Games” campaign, urging publishers to cease ruining games that gamers had “purchased.”

Streaming has conditioned us to view culture as perpetually available, yet actually, we’re experiencing a rental-based system masquerading as true possession.

We do not possess the music we listen to, the series we watch repeatedly, or the films we acquire digitally. Instead, we lease these items, occasionally for an extended period, and occasionally without any clear duration.

RECOMMENDED:

Discover more from LFHCK a.k.a LiFeHaCK

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

Previous Post
Next Post

Recent posts

Quote of the week

"People ask me what I do in the winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

~ Rogers Hornsby

LFHCK a.k.a LiFeHaCK

About

Lifehack Your Life is a simple content personal blogger from everywhere.

Topics

Made with 🩷 in Yogyakarta Indonesia

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Discover more from LFHCK a.k.a LiFeHaCK

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading