Amazon Argues Users Don't Actually Own Purchased Prime Video Content -

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

https://www.scribd.com/document/481886329/Caudel-v-Amazon-MTD

https://archive.md/rESiM

Scribd is a pain in the ass to copy text from. Not even archive.md can save me. It's such a pain in the ass that I'm just going to quote the first two paragraphs.

-1-MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS2:20-CV-00848-KJM-KJN
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) hereby submits this memorandum of points and authorities in support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff Amanda Caudel (“Caudel” or “Plaintiff”).
I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s Complaint is premised on speculative harm tied to contingent future events involving the actions of third-parties, which may or may not occur. This kind of conjecture about unaccrued future injury is too hypothetical to sustain Article III standing, and the Complaint should be dismissed. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had suffered any cognizable injury, her claims would fail on the merits because a contract between the parties explicitly allows for the practices of which she complains. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Amazon’s Prime Video service, which allows consumers to purchase video content for streaming or download, misleads consumers because sometimes that video content might later become unavailable if a third-party rights’ holder revokes or modifies Amazon’s license. The Complaint points vaguely to online commentary about this alleged potential harm but does not identify any Prime Video purchase unavailable to Plaintiff herself. In fact, all of the Prime Video content that Plaintiff has ever purchased remains available. And Plaintiff has continued to buy content on Amazon Prime Video even after. this Complaint was filed, making thirteen such purchases. These facts discredit any claim that Plaintiff has been injured. What’s more, the possibility that certain content might become unavailable is explicitly disclosed as part of terms of use repeatedly and conspicuously presented to consumers who buy content on Amazon Prime Video. Plaintiff and other Amazon Prime Video customers are required to and do consent to Amazon’s fully-disclosed, hyperlinked conditions and terms of use before making video content purchases. The most relevant agreement here—the Prime Video Terms of Use—is presented to consumers every time they buy digital content on Amazon Prime Video. These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons. So, beyond failing to allege harm sufficient to support Article III standing, Plaintiff’s consumer law claims are barred on the merits because they are predicated on a non-cognizable contract theory and Plaintiff cannot allege that any independent unlawful, unfair or fraudulent conduct that could support her claim for injunctive relief.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Amazon Customers Purchasing Digital Content Assent to the Terms of Service.
Amazon offers a wide variety of services to customers, including the Prime Video service. Prime Video is a platform that allows customers who have signed up for the service to gain access to digital movies, television shows, and other video content (collectively “Digital Content”) for either download or streaming. See Compl. ¶ 1; see also Declaration of Marcela Viegas in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“Viegas Decl.”) ¶ 12, Ex. B (“Amazon Prime Video Terms of Use”).Digital Content is offered multiple ways on Amazon Prime—through subscriptions, rentals, purchases, pay-per-view, and free. Viegas Decl. Ex. B at 2. All Digital Content, regardless of how offered, is provided to customers on Prime Video through the grant of a limited license. Id. at 3(“Digital Content may be available as Subscription Digital Content, Rental Digital Content, Purchased Digital Content, PPV Digital Content, Free Digital Content, or any combination of those, and in each case is subject to the limited license grant below.”) (emphasis added); see also id. at 6(“Subject to payment of any charges to rent, purchase, or access Digital Content . . . Amazon grantsyou a . . . limited license . . . .”). Digital Content is offered to customers under a limited license, in part, because some of that Content is owned by third-parties who ultimately control its access and availability.
See id. at 3 (referring to “restrictions imposed by content providers”).Purchased Digital Content, that is, Digital Content that users can acquire for “on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time,” is likewise provided via limited license. Id. The Prime Video Terms of Use therefore has a specific provision that explains that Purchased Digital Content may become unavailable to users and limits Amazon’s liability if this occurs: i. Availability of Purchased Digital Content. Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions or for other...

 

[Judge Holden]

Gee I wonder what people who can neither afford nor access physical media versions of the shit they already paid might do to circumnavigate this bullshit...

 

[The Last Stand]

You bought a license. Amazon can revoke your digital purchases at any time. Legally, sure.

This is why you should preserve physical media as much as you can.

 

[Allanon]

Any time a company opens its mouth to say "But you didn't actually purchase-" it should be slapped in the mouth and silenced. If the old dudes constantly screwing up the internet by not understanding it actually did understand it, the first thing they'd do is look at all the flimsy 'you're paying us for nothing' ToS out there and slap them down.

 

[The Last Stand]

Any time a company opens its mouth to say "But you didn't actually purchase-" it should be slapped in the mouth and silenced. If the old dudes constantly screwing up the internet by not understanding it actually did understand it, the first thing they'd do is look at all the flimsy 'you're paying us for nothing' ToS out there and slap them down.

They may as well say you're renting the content. Digital should've been the best way to preserve content, now it's the opposite. Anything could be taken from you at any time for any reason. There's little value.

 

[TheSimpShow]

Any time a company opens its mouth to say "But you didn't actually purchase-" it should be slapped in the mouth and silenced. If the old dudes constantly screwing up the internet by not understanding it actually did understand it, the first thing they'd do is look at all the flimsy 'you're paying us for nothing' ToS out there and slap them down.

Hey hey now, aren't we all for less of that pesky government, whatever will happen to the libertarian dream if we don't allow unfettered corporate fuedalism?

 

[Irritable Bowel Syndrome]

Still probably less cucked than those people who paid $10 for the privilege of posting on a forum and getting banned.

 

[Pampered Degenerate]

Hey hey now, aren't we all for less of that pesky government, whatever will happen to the libertarian dream if we don't allow unfettered corporate fuedalism?

I want government to smack corporations around, not take their place.

 

[The Real SVP]

Any time a company opens its mouth to say "But you didn't actually purchase-" it should be slapped in the mouth and silenced.

Any time a company makes claims like this it should be shut down and the people responsible for it should be imprisoned for fraud.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Still probably less cucked than those people who paid $10 for the privilege of posting on a forum and getting banned.

At least when you buy a movie on Amazon you get to watch it indefinitely.

 

[AnnLurker]

Just do what your fathers before you did and make a bootleg copy of your rental. Win Win.

 

[Allanon]

They may as well say you're renting the content. Digital should've been the best way to preserve content, now it's the opposite. Anything could be taken from you at any time for any reason. There's little value.

They have the gall to offer rentals and purchases separately, as if you actually get to keep the things you buy. Didn't Apple get in trouble for removing something from people's catalogues after they paid for it just recently? It's completely unbalanced rules that completely insulate the companies against any kind of backlash while not protecting the buyer at all, and they excuse it with a ToS that prevents you from accessing the site without agreeing to and is too long and complicated for most people to read anyway.

I thought, before this coronavirus stuff, someone was taking the concept of TOS to court to defang it and make 'compulsive TOS' useless. If they did, it would severely hamper most companies' attempts to say 'actually you're only paying for access to this, and we can revoke it without refunding you at any time because you agreed'

Hey hey now, aren't we all for less of that pesky government, whatever will happen to the libertarian dream if we don't allow unfettered corporate fuedalism?

I want individual freedom, not corporate freedom. Let the government dickslap corporations that go out of line, it'll keep other corporations from doing the same.

 

[Pixy]

Pretty sure that's how most online content platforms, even Steam iirc, do things. You're paying for a license, not the product itself.

 

[Idiotron]

I mean.... it's true.
When you get a library card, you don't own all the books in the library, same with movies and a streaming service.

Digital should've been the best way to preserve content

Oh, it is.
I pirated over 200 movies this year and they'll be very well preserved in the future.

 

[TFT-A9]

I mean.... it's true.
When you get a library card, you don't own all the books in the library, same with movies and a streaming service.

You don't usually have to pay for a library card.

Seriously Amazon fuck you. Quit being gigantic shitheels for ONCE in your damn lives.

 

[Kacho]

This has always been the case and it's why anyone who burns their money on digital media is a simp and a cuck.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

You bought a license. Amazon can revoke your digital purchases at any time. Legally, sure.

This is why you should preserve physical media as much as you can.

I have two of these ugly fuckers stacked on top of each other in my office just for that reason.
Holds 150 discs each and comes with cataloging software.

 

[garakfan69]

This has always been the case and it's why anyone who burns their money on digital media is a simp and a cuck.

Who cares if I don't own anything I pay money for. It's convenient!

 

[nya001]

as it says in the OP:

"These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons."

they didn't "buy" the movie, they obtained a license to view it, nobody is "selling" them something and claiming it back.

When they sell CDs and even before, when they sold records, the records were the buyers to keep.

I don't understand the problem here, if you pay to use my bicycle and you agree that I am not selling it to you, but just letting you use it and I can get it back when I want, you can't say no actually I think now it's a sale and I won't give it back.

The problem is imho that people agree to these things - if a consumer association or something got people together to say no, unless you actually sell us the digital content and make it available forever (like on a CD, a record, a tape, a DVD) or downloadable so we have a copy then we won't buy it and sales actually dropped then they would end up not being able to have people pay to borrow stuff for a limited amount of time.

Whether you actually "purchase" a digital movie to be available forever or you "purchase" the right to use it for some time depends on the contract that you agree with when paying for the money. If people don't read what they are agreeing to and the company makes more money out of it, why not?

Years ago if somebody said look I'm making a video game, it will be great, but pay me now, not when it's ready, people wouldn't have agreed. If they said it's not complete, I've made some but pay me anyway they wouldn't have agreed. If they said look, it's playable, pay for it, eventually I'll make the rest and each time something is ready you'll pay me more also nobody would have agreed.

But hey if you call it "pre-order", "early access" and "DLC" and people are going for it, why not?

Same way, if people agree to pay to watch a movie until they decide you can't, that's what you agreed to.

Also when people bought vinyl records, they didn't "buy" the music, they were not allowed to make money by playing it on the radio or to organise public concerts based on playing the record.

Nobody could take the record back, but if record companies could have got away with it, I am sure they would have been happy to say you are buying the record but we can take it back when we want. People would have said you are crazy.

But now they don't say you are crazy, they say sure I agree.

@ somebody who said "when you buy something on Amazon it's going to be available forever" yes right, because Symbian on Nokia was also going to be available forever, right?

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

Who cares if I don't own anything I pay money for. It's convenient!

Convenience is the reason Amazon is big enough to be an asshole about shit like this.


Edit: has anybody here successfully set up their own media server? It's something I've been thinking about for a while and I'd love to pick your brain.