[Oni]

When you buy a movie from Apple, you don't really own it. People have sued.

When you buy a movie through iTunes, you don't actually own it. And that's a problem. 
In Sacramento, California, Apple is about to stand trial. Here's the issue at hand. You know all those times you "bought" movies on iTunes? Well, because of the way Apple licenses films from studios, you never really own them. You actually have rented them at a higher fee, for a longer time.

And that has consumers pretty upset.

David Andino is the lead plaintiff in this case. He alleges Apple reserves the right to terminate access to any movie you "purchase." And that they do this on regular occasions. He wants them to stop telling people they have "bought" things when they really have not.

The judge in the case is U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez. And so far, he's put Apple to the test, wondering why they think consumers should expect that buying digital movies is not owning them.

"Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely," writes Mendez. "But in common usage, the term 'buy' means to acquire possession over something. It seems plausible, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, that reasonable consumers would expect their access couldn’t be revoked."

Read More: https://nofilmschool.com/apple-movie-buys

[Drako]

I love how Apple acts like it values the customer more than the Android phone manufacturers, but then it goes and does stuff like this. And of course, they really don't care about you and me.

[Oni]

I love how Apple acts like it values the customer more than the Android phone manufacturers, but then it goes and does stuff like this. And of course, they really don't care about you and me.

Google Play also "sells" movies, though I'd argue they're less predatory than Apple.

[Equinox]

This seems like a weird thing to sue over, given that this actually is more common than people think.

A prime example is video games. You don’t own a video game that you buy, not even a copy of it. What you buy is a license to download and use the video games.

I guess to some degree there is validity in saying that you shouldn’t advertise things as saying you “bought” them (especially for things like movies where in this case Apple revokes the ability to watch them). Again though, the same applies elsewhere.

To go back to the video game example, if it’s a multiplayer game, you have the right to play, but if you get banned, that right is essentially revoked. There’s no legal recourse because that’s part of your agreement. You buying a license to play, and then breaking the terms of service of the game (e.g. hacking or cheating) enables a company to ban you from said game, and therefore revoking your license.

I think people are just unaware of these kind of license though. Hence the lawsuit.

[Spooky]

I love that someone has finally spoken out about this. It is very scary that a company/entity has the power to pull the trigger on all your entertainment for whatever reason they choose to do. Whether it be more money/politics etc. Anything is in the air with legal ground like this being okay.

[mothered]

I love that someone has finally spoken out about this.

I love that a company on the scale of Apple, Is finally taken to court. Due to their worth and reputation, many similar companies believe they're untouchable.

Though If the litigation Is successful, It wouldn't put a dent on their $2 trillion net worth.

[Oni]

This seems like a weird thing to sue over, given that this actually is more common than people think.

A prime example is video games. You don’t own a video game that you buy, not even a copy of it. What you buy is a license to download and use the video games.

I guess to some degree there is validity in saying that you shouldn’t advertise things as saying you “bought” them (especially for things like movies where in this case Apple revokes the ability to watch them). Again though, the same applies elsewhere.

To go back to the video game example, if it’s a multiplayer game, you have the right to play, but if you get banned, that right is essentially revoked. There’s no legal recourse because that’s part of your agreement. You buying a license to play, and then breaking the terms of service of the game (e.g. hacking or cheating) enables a company to ban you from said game, and therefore revoking your license.

I think people are just unaware of these kind of license though. Hence the lawsuit.

This is pretty much the case for most media. As much as I dislike Apple, I'd imagine other companies will also be targeted if the lawsuit is successful. Google tends to use the same terminology, as does Steam.

[mothered]

Google tends to use the same terminology

On-topic of litigation but on a different principle, It's amazing how law firms tend to put Google In the "too hard basket" when filing lawsuits.

For Instance, The Pirate Bay was taken to court back In 2009 for distributing copyright material. The fact of the matter Is, their site Is an empty page that's created by the uploaders, thus they do not Interfere with the content, nor host any of It on their servers. They're simply providing a gateway for users to access It, much the same as Google providing a gateway to access The Pirate Bay.

So what's the difference between the two? Nothing. Yet, prosecutors decide that It's perfectly fine for Google to play an Integral role In giving users a direct gateway to copyright material.