1842
Amazon Prime Video is able to remove a video from your library after purchase. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
657 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We are contacting you regarding a past Prime Video purchase(s). The below content is no longer playable on Prime Video.

In an effort to compensate you for the inconvenience, we have applied a £5.99 Amazon Gift Card to your account. The Gift Card amount is equal to the amount you paid for the Prime Video purchase(s). To apologize for the inconvenience, we've also added an Amazon Gift Certificate of £5 to your account. Your Gift Card balance will be automatically applied to your next eligible order. You can view your balance and usage history in Your Account here:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Isn’t this a tacit acknowledgement that either the consumer may not have understood that their purchase was revocable, or that there is not a true ‘complete resolution’, since the path to complete resolution is a physical replacement (and not persistent access to a digital distribution)?

The consumer not understanding something is different than the consumer not being provided truthful information. A consumer might also misunderstand the degree to which the own the physical media they purchase, in that they cannot redistribute or exhibit it without an additional license agreement.

People should understand their rights better, but people might also not care about these rights enough to care much, which is fine, we have to pick our battles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Except the agreement is intentionally misleading. To this moment, the phrasing on Google TV is to either "rent" or "purchase" titles. In most other types of exchange, the "seller" of a "purchase" transaction can't terminate the exchange on a whim, with no recourse.

    Can we really blame consumers for being mislead by the intentionally misleading language of TRILLION dollar companies?

    Companies with this much control over the market shouldn't be allowed to run roughshod over digital media agreements. People want ownership over the media they pay for, just like people want ownership over the homes they pay a mortgage on. That isn't an option that's being provided, but instead they're being fed a misleading alternative that shares the same language.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent