It's not realistic to expect the average user to read and/or understand the TOS when making a purchase like this. The button that you click says buy, not rent until we decide your rental period is over. Shouldn't matter if it's stated in the TOS somewhere.

As far as not spending money on bad platforms, thats what this community is about. All the platforms are proving that they are bad.

The problem as I see it is a violation of expectations. If I "buy" something, there is no expectation that I will be deprived of that thing in the future unless, (A) it's a consumable and I e used it up, (B) it's capable of wearing out and I've done that myself, (C) it's a subscription service where you pay for the time You've used it.

In the case of digital assets that I've been sold, it can't be used up and it can't wear out. I did not subscribe to the digital asset, I bought it.

Violating the expectation of a purchase and then not fully making the buyer whole is trying to change the transaction type to a subscription after the fact.

If the digital content providers want to pull these kinds of tricks, then they can't tell us we are buying the content. They must be up front and tell us it's a rental whose length is undetermined. The rental may be for our whole lives, or not.

Anything else is a bait and switch and makes people angry.

Yep. These arguments get at a problem I have with a lot of the piracy community. Which is not paying for the movie, but still watching it just shows the rights holders that there is a demand for the product.

If people want the DRM BS to end it would be far more effective to not pay for it AND not watch it. Companies would do a rethink surprisingly fast if money and engagement with their products fell off a cliff.

But that requires sacrifice and inconvenience to the consumer, and consumers have a pathetic amount of resolve when it comes to doing something uncomfortable now for a better outcome later.