this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
565 points (98.6% liked)

Selfhosted

40329 readers
426 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

*What rights do you have to the digital movies, TV shows and music you buy online? That question was on the minds of Telstra TV Box Office customers this month after the company announced it would shut down the service in June. Customers were told that unless they moved over to another service, Fetch, they would no longer be able to access the films and TV shows they had bought. *

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are obvious responses here along the lines of embracing piracy and (re-)embracing hard copy ownership.

All that aside though, this feels like a fairly obvious point for legal intervention. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already existing grounds for legal action, it's just that the stakes are likely small enough and costs of legal action high enough to be prohibitive. Which is where the government should come in on the advice of a consumer body.

Some reasonable things that could be done:

  • Money back requirements
  • Clear warnings to consumers about "ownership" being temporary
  • Requiring tracking statistics of how long "ownership" tends to be and that such is presented to consumers before they purchase
  • If there are structural issues that increase the chances of "withdrawn" ownership (such as complex distribution deals etc), a requirement to notify the consumer of this prior to purchase.

These are basic things based on transparency that tend to already exist in consumer regulation (depending on your jurisdiction of course). Streaming companies will likely whinge (and probably have already to prevent any regulation around this), but that's the point ... to force them to clean up their act.

As far as the relations between streaming services and the studios (or whoever owns the distribution rights), it makes perfect sense for all contracts to have embedded in them that any digital purchase must be respected for the life of the purchaser even if the item cannot be purchased any more. It's not hard, it's just the price of doing business.

All of this is likely the result of the studios being the dicks they truly are and still being used to pushing everyone around (and of course the tech world being narcissistic liars).

[–] skittlebrau@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Another thing to add - these services can’t use the word ‘buy’ because that implies ownership. They should be forced to use a word like ‘rent’.

[–] experbia@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I always thought it should be "unlock", because that's more what is happening. you're not buying it, renting has a connotation of a fixed term ownership time, but unlock describes the action.. they've had the movie the whole time sitting there, probably in a CDN near your home already, but you're not allowed to see it until you pony up. it's locked away.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Oh for sure. All of this is clearly a situation where the law is slow to catch up.