Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 13, 2018

Remember when you decided to buy, rather than rent, that movie online? We have some bad news for you -- you didn't. Biologist Anders Gonçalves da Silva was surprised this week to find three movies he had purchased through iTunes simply disappeared one day from his library. So he contacted Apple to find out what had happened. And Apple told him it no longer had the license rights for those movies so they had been removed. To which he of course responded: Ah, but I didn't rent them, I actually bought them through your "buy" option. At which point da Silva learnt a valuable lesson about the realities of digital purchases and modern licensing rules: While he had bought the movies, what he had actually paid for was the ability to download the movie to his hard drive.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is what happens when you're too lazy to read the 15,000-word terms and conditions.

#1 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2018-09-13 06:54 PM | Reply

I'm sure trillion dollar Apple will be offering up a refund any minute now... LOL!

Anyway, strong argument for ignoring the law and just downloading whatever you like. The same way Uber runs taxis in complete abrogation of the law. I believe that's called the Free Market.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-13 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#2 ... I'm sure trillion dollar Apple will be offering up a refund any minute now... LOL! ...

From the cited article:

... "Our ability to issue the refund diminishes over time. Hence your purchases don't meet the conditions for a refund. To learn move about our refund policy, see this page ... " it responded.

But follow that link and there is in fact no clear language on refunds. What it says is: "All Transactions are final. Content prices may change at any time. If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of Content, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement of the Content or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple."

If other words, Apple has complete discretion over whether to refund you in full, in part, or not at all. And in this case it used its discretion to grant him another two movie rental credits of $5.99 or less....


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-09-13 07:36 PM | Reply

Anyway, strong argument for ignoring the law and just downloading whatever you like. The same way Uber runs taxis in complete abrogation of the law. I believe that's called the Free Market.

#2 | Posted by snoofy

Sure and everyone should just steal whatever you create for a living too.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-13 07:47 PM | Reply

"Sure and everyone should just steal whatever you create for a living too."

Yeah, about that:

Apple stole these movies from Anders Gonçalves da Silva after he already paid for them.

Apple is a trillion dollar company.

Do the math.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-13 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I totally agree with Snoofy on that one. Wow that is beyond unacceptable.

#6 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-09-13 09:03 PM | Reply

Here's another tidbit... If you "buy" them at some point and it is a purchase and the "Terms and Conditions" change - as they continually do you may no longer "own" them.

#7 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-09-13 09:05 PM | Reply

"Sure and everyone should just steal whatever you create for a living too."

Yeah, about that:

Apple stole these movies from Anders Gonçalves da Silva after he already paid for them.

Apple is a trillion dollar company.

Do the math.

#5 | Posted by snoofy

Apple didn't make the movies. Mostly middle class laborers did.

That's like saying you should be able to steal twinkies from anywhere because you don't like walmart and walmart sells twinkies.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-13 09:13 PM | Reply

I agree.

It's exactly like Apple saying they can steal from you.

Plus, Apple has the bonus of people like you saying its okay for Apple to steal from you.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-13 09:16 PM | Reply

India support overuses "hence". I see that all the time with my company's India support.

#10 | Posted by pirate at 2018-09-13 10:06 PM | Reply

"If you "buy" them at some point and it is a purchase and the "Terms and Conditions" change - as they continually do you may no longer "own" them."

I can't imagine that would hold up in any court. What other contracts can be altered by one party unilaterally?

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-13 11:06 PM | Reply

Danforth, correct me if I'm mistaken, but what the customer bought from Apple is the right to access that work in the Apple catalog.
Now that Apple doesn't have that work in the catalog, what the customer bought is sort of useless.
It would probably be fraud to sell that.

Owing to the intricacies of IP law, nobody stole anything from anybody in the legal sense of the word, including if you just download this movie from a popular file sharing site in Sweden. That's the meta issue here.

In the past customers have lost all the songs they bought, I think it was Yahoo Music that closed down in 2004 or so and when Yahoo shut down the servers, their license to access content was useless because there was no server to access it on.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 12:07 AM | Reply

"what the customer bought from Apple is the right to access that work in the Apple catalog."

In the fine print. My guess is Apple purposely gave the impression you were "buying the movie". I can understand if you were buying the right to download it onto your hard drive, and you didn't for years and years.

"including if you just download this movie from a popular file sharing site in Sweden."

Why on earth wouldn't that be theft?

"In the past customers have lost all the songs they bought"

That truly sucks. Of course, certain recordings I've had as an LP, Cassette, CD and .mp3, so who am I to talk?

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 12:20 AM | Reply

Sure and everyone should just steal whatever you create for a living too.
...........................#4 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Thieves have bills too...and if what you create is a 'terms & conditions' document to protect predatory capitalists then c'est la vie

#14 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2018-09-14 12:26 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Only buy digital rights from the rights owner.
If the rights owner doesn't make it easy to buy from them directly, then pirate the data until they do.
F Apple.

#15 | Posted by bored at 2018-09-14 02:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why on earth wouldn't that be theft?"

Copyright infringement isn't theft.
A while back there was a link to an abandonware download site for old computer games whose publishers are defunnt.
That's copyright infringement.
Nobody thinks of it as theft.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 03:06 AM | Reply

Some idiots in this thread are actually making Snoofy look smart and sensible. Not funny, guys.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-09-14 08:33 AM | Reply

I've been saying this about streaming movies for a long time. You never really "own" a stream. That's why I love DVD's. These movie companies are trying to get you to the point of where you are buying "nothing", which in my opinion is what "streaming" is.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2018-09-14 10:10 AM | Reply

There are tons of web sites out there where you can stream copyrighted content without having to pay them. I imagine some people here consider that no different than physical theft like putting a Twinkie in your pocket.

I also imagine that if Trump ever gets the Ken Starr treatment over one of his scandal coverups, the cigar will be replaced with a Twinkie. Happy Friday!

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-09-14 10:24 AM | Reply

"Nobody thinks of it as theft."

Unless it's YOUR work that's being taken.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 10:28 AM | Reply

"I imagine some people here consider that no different than physical theft"

If I invented a universal garage door opener, can I take whatever I find?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 10:30 AM | Reply

#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-09-14 10:30 AM | FLAG: Believes photography is literally equivalent to stealing people's souls

If you copy someone else's recipe exactly, it's not the same thing as stealing the ingredients. A cook or restaurant may be able to legally go after another cook/restaurant if they had a patent or copyright on them, but going after anyone who ate or received food from the other cook/restaurant and equating them with burglars and rapists? That's just retarded.

#22 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-09-14 10:41 AM | Reply

"Believes photography is literally equivalent to stealing people's souls"

What an idiotic comparison.

"If you copy someone else's recipe exactly, it's not the same thing as stealing the ingredients."

But if you steal someone else's work product, that's theft.

"going after anyone who ate or received food from the other cook/restaurant and equating them with burglars and rapists?"

Can you taste the stupid when you post something like that?

If you really want to be honest, the cook made a meal, and you intercepted it, so the cook didn't get paid.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 10:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Can you taste the stupid when you post something like that?"

I was thinking the exact same thing about your posts. Damn you, thief!

#24 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-09-14 10:53 AM | Reply

""Nobody thinks of it as theft."

That's certainly the philosophy of socialists.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-14 10:57 AM | Reply

Apple "sold" movies? My stars, the things I don't know.

#26 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-09-14 11:07 AM | Reply

"Damn you, thief!"

Try again; ideas can't be copyrighted.

Use this scenario: showing up for your paycheck at the end of the week, and being told you're getting 1/10 of your pay, because someone took your work product as their own.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 11:18 AM | Reply

You're equating those who are doing essentially the same thing as those who taped songs off the radio for personal enjoyment for decades with those who claim someone else's work as their own and profit off it.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-09-14 11:40 AM | Reply

That's certainly the philosophy of socialists.

#25 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-09-14 10:57 AM | FLAG:

Private property IS theft, you know.

#29 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-14 12:05 PM | Reply

I agree.

It's exactly like Apple saying they can steal from you.

Plus, Apple has the bonus of people like you saying its okay for Apple to steal from you.

#9 | Posted by snoofy

No it's like saying apple stole from you, therefore you can steal from middle class laborers who make entertainment for a living.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-14 01:10 PM | Reply

#11, danforth,

EVERY term and condition for your credit cards, loans, cell phones, utility service, rental agreements... are non-negotiable for the average consumer. Whether you read the 15,000-word terms and conditions or not makes no difference. The Courts still enforce them, subject only to exceptions for minors and Alzheimer's patients, etc...

Each time a single consumer wins on a single point the agreements become longer so that the consumer can never win again.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-09-14 02:04 PM | Reply

you are buying "nothing", which in my opinion is what "streaming" is.
................................#18 | POSTED BY BOAZ

sounds like a description of bitcoin

#32 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-09-14 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing you "buy" from the iTunes store you own.

You buy a non-transferable license to use the product.

#33 | Posted by 726 at 2018-09-14 02:32 PM | Reply

"Nobody thinks of it as theft."

Unless it's YOUR work that's being taken.
#20 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Perhaps, but that's just your personal bias clouding your understanding of law.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 02:42 PM | Reply

"No it's like saying apple stole from you, therefore you can steal from middle class laborers who make entertainment for a living."

No, because those middle class laborers put their work into a copyrighted product, and they don't own the copyright.

Its like saying you can steal from the billionaire copyright owners who revoked your paid legal access to their work in Apple's catalog.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 02:48 PM | Reply

No, because those middle class laborers put their work into a copyrighted product, and they don't own the copyright.

#35 | Posted by snoofy

How does that matter?
Who's going to pay them if everyone just starts stealing their products as you propose?

If everyone stole new cars without consequence, what would happen to the people who build cars?

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-14 03:22 PM | Reply

It's too easy for similes to turn into strawmen attacks. Just say what it is: extending a patent beyond 7 years, and making superficial changes to keep generics off the market is theft. And the Congress goes along with it because they're invested in these companies who pull this kind of ----...it keeps the stocks high at the expense of the taxpayer who is paying for the basic research. And causing insurance rates to exponentially rise.

At the end of all transactions, the rich keep the lion's share of the loot, and the poor, lower, and middle classes foot the bill.

#37 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-09-14 03:26 PM | Reply

" that's just your personal bias clouding your understanding of law."

One either believes in theft of another's work, or they don't.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 04:37 PM | Reply

Let's say you teach an extraordinarily advanced class in your specialty. After a successful first year, you're summoned to the HR office, and fired.

Why? They taped your classes, and will simply be showing them in the future.

Fair?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 04:42 PM | Reply

--extending a patent beyond 7 years, and making superficial changes to keep generics off the market is theft.

7 years is pretty short when millions go into developing a product. The current term is 20 years. Maybe that's a little high, or maybe not.

What's really obscene is copyright terms of 90 or 120 years made possible by Hollywood bribing politicians.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-14 04:59 PM | Reply

"What's really obscene is copyright terms of 90 or 120 years"

You're blaming Hollywood for creating things of lasting value.

Who do you believe should own the rights to, say, Mickey Mouse? Disney, or no one?

How about Johnny Carson? Or Bob Hope? How about Roy Rodgers and Dale Evans? Should their estates have any say in how their images are used, or is that for you to decide?

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 05:15 PM | Reply

--Who do you believe should own the rights to, say, Mickey Mouse? Disney, or no one?

It should go into the public domain, aas Congress originally intended, after a copyright term of 14 years, renewable for another 14 years. Congress granted it for a limited time only, precisely so that future generations could create new content drawn from previous work.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-14 05:26 PM | Reply

I would adjust the original copyright terms for increases in life expectancy.

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-14 05:31 PM | Reply

"so that future generations could create new content drawn from previous work."

And turn something of quality into meaningless ----.

The average age of a Fortune 500 company is 80 years.
www.quora.com

According to your plan, most of the Fortune 500's patents, logos, and goodwill could be used or abused at will. The McDonald's Arches would be meaningless; buying Crest toothpaste would be a crapshoot. And that Apple computer...?

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I would adjust the original copyright terms for increases in life expectancy."

Of the product? Or should Walt Disney's rights die with him?

Ultimately, why should I be able to create a business to take care of my family, including my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but someone who does the same in a creative business must have his descendants disinherited?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-14 05:48 PM | Reply

I believe in the purpose of writers of the original copyright law. You don't. I advocate for the public. You advocate for corporations. You claim you want balance between private property rights and the public good in taxation levels, but sing a different tune when it comes to Hollywood.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-14 05:50 PM | Reply

"One either believes in theft of another's work, or theyAnd don't."

Tell ya what I believe:
"Good artists borrow.
Great artists steal."

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 05:51 PM | Reply

"Or should Walt Disney's rights die with him?"

Dead people having rights makes a farce of rights for the living.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 05:53 PM | Reply

Owners of intellectual property should have property rights, and they should pay property tax that exceeds the cost of enforcement of those rights.

#49 | Posted by bored at 2018-09-14 06:08 PM | Reply

"And turn something of quality into meaningless ----."

Hip-hop artists want to have a talk with you.

#50 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-09-14 06:40 PM | Reply

--"And turn something of quality into meaningless ----."

Didn't Disney steal a lot of their "original content" from folk tales, the Brothers Grimm, etc.?

"One of the most popular versions of Cinderella was written in French by Charles Perrault in 1697, under the name Cendrillon. The popularity of his tale was due to his additions to the story, including the pumpkin, the fairy-godmother and the introduction of "glass" slippers.[16]

Good thing Disney didn't have to pay royalties to Perrault.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-14 06:52 PM | Reply

"Owners of intellectual property should have property rights, and they should pay property tax that exceeds the cost of enforcement of those rights."

It used to be that way. But under Clinton, IP law was moved from civil law to criminal law. It used to be, if you were pirating Sony's IP they had to show actual damages to prevail in a civil suit.

Now the FBI only has to show statutory infringement and the statutory damages for infringing a song is up to $150,000. Compare that to the punishment for stealing an actual CD from a retail store.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-14 07:00 PM | Reply

THIS is why I don't buy movies digitally. I prefer to buy actual DVDs and Blu-Rays. Call me old fashioned, but you can't delete a DVD.

#53 | Posted by MarcNBarrett at 2018-09-15 06:45 AM | Reply

my rule in the digital age is if you don't have a hard copy you don't have it. 'digital Cloud servers" dissolve... like real clouds do... hence the cloud name

#54 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-09-15 11:21 AM | Reply

Danforth serious question.

In 1996 I bought Mallrats on VHS. My VCR recently died and my TV no longer has composite video inputs. I still have the VHS tape so if I download the movie am I stealing it or not?

#55 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-09-15 11:55 AM | Reply

"In 1996 I bought Mallrats on VHS. My VCR recently died and my TV no longer has composite video inputs. I still have the VHS tape so if I download the movie am I stealing it or not?"

You're not stealing it...

But you are accessing a copyrighted work without permission to do so, which is a Federal crime punishable by up to $150,000 fine per infringing work.

The fact that you bought the videotape doesn't give you the right to access other copies of the copyrighted work. Only the one on your videotape.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-16 12:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort