I was quite impressed - it was not asked for, but offered. Although It was only a 5 quid purchase, I am not sure it will make a dent in Mr Bezos’ yacht budget!
You nailed it. If I buy an ebook I will lose the license if the publisher cuts ties with the seller or selling agents. What can the publisher do to me if have the hard book. Do they expect me to burn it down, do not read it anymore or buy another copy of the book. The information in the book remains the same whether it’s ebook or hard copy. So why does the license matter here only for digital copy that was legally purchased. I’m not talking about piracy here.
Again if I lend my hard copy to anyone to read it’s still not piracy. The publisher can do nothing to prevent sharing hard copies.
1 Like
Did you happen to see any of the kerfuffle many years ago when publishers were expiring digital copies of library books? Like the ones that libraries were allowed to lend?
Apparently they decided that the average hardcopy book would only survive a certain number of borrowings, so they just expire the book after X number of checkouts, or a certain period of time.
not me. I back up all of my digital purchases with Usenet downloads.
the one subscription to rule them all.
Apple has also been guilty of this in the past. For example, they removed movies people had bought due to changes in licensing. Here’s the story…
1 Like
This happened to me with Paramount and iTunes. Purchased Star Trek: First Contact when it was first available in the iTunes store. Then Paramount pulled the license and I could not watch my “purchased” movie anymore through iTunes. I never purchased a digital movie again.
2 Likes
I work with a client who sells digital versions of entertainment. This is a frequent conversation of interest. Let me assure you all that companies and their lawyers do not care about whether or not you paid for the content in their service. If they’re not able to offer it to you anymore, you’re not going to get a copy.
The mere thought that any other option should be available is basically an internal crisis, and if you suggest it, you get a nice conversation about the realities of business today.
Buy physical media, folks. This situation isn’t improving any time soon.
2 Likes
Are you saying that companies like Apple don’t care? Or that companies like Paramount don’t care?
I would think it’s more the latter, as I can’t imagine Apple enjoying the bad will generated when they have to pull a bunch of content that people consider to be “owned.” It costs them money in support, hassle, and consumer confidence.
That said, do you believe that the content sellers have enough leverage with the content owners that they could force a deal that wouldn’t allow the content owners to pull purchased content?
I don’t think content sellers worry when content owners pull “purchased” content. They make their money the instant we click buy.
“Purchased Content will generally remain available for you to download, redownload, or otherwise access from Apple. Though it is unlikely, subsequent to your purchase, Content may be removed from the Services (for instance, because the provider removed it) and become unavailable for further download or access from Apple. To ensure your ability to continue enjoying Content, we encourage you to download all purchased Content to a device in your possession and to back it up.”
That doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe I just don’t have the right mindset, but I really don’t think anybody WANTS a customer to have a bad experience.
I’d believe they’re resigned to the fact that, for small amounts of content, it’s an inevitability - and the profitability outweighs the business risk.
But all things being equal, I think if they could make the deal in a way that they wouldn’t have swaths of angry customers at some point in the future, they would.
Happened to me with Apple iWork software purchased (back before it was free) from the Apple App Store! And that was their suggestion when I complained. Unfortunately the software has certificates associated with it that expires, so even saving copies doesn’t mean that it will be installable in the future.
Luckily at least purchased music is now DRM free.
1 Like
Which is why I keep a backup of digital media I have purchased a license to use and read in a format that cannot be revoked. NO, I will NOT share, sell or otherwise abuse the terms of the license I bought and paid for but I also will not be held hostage for stuff I willingly paid for just because someone decides the terms are retroactively changed.
3 Likes
I am saying people in those companies probably care, but as a whole, the corporation is not a person and doesn’t care about any of us, and is much more concerned about its legal liability. If any of these companies act as the distributor and the distribution changes, then bad press be darned, they’ll pull the content.
Apple is probably the only company in the world trying to do something different in this space, but they also have a lot of lawyers and a long history of selling digital media. I still don’t trust them to keep content I have licensed forever, and neither should anybody else.
The key thing here is that it’s content I have licensed, in the minds of these corporations. I didn’t buy it. I licensed it. And those two words matter enough that the difference between them has been repeatedly emphasized to me by said client. The corporation is absolved of all guilt thanks to the word “licence.”
Edit to clarify: to be totally clear, I don’t like this, but it’s just reality. It is what it is. This situation came for video games years ago, and it’s just a matter of time before it comes for other stores too.
I am not sure if this will work. Thinking hypothetically. Not a legal advice.
Send a written letter to the publisher, stating that you intend to convert this purchase of “License” into a fully owned digital copy. If they have any objection they will need to refund the purchase amount and revoke my license within 30 days otherwise this is a Fully owned copy and not subject to their license.
My 20+ characters 
I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that we shouldn’t trust that something we “license” will be available indefinitely.
It just irritates me when people say “Apple pulled my license” or “Amazon pulled my license” or whatever. The title of this thread is refreshing (although the situation is frustrating) - at least OP is putting the responsibility on the cxompany where the decision was made.
Also not a lawyer, but I just about guarantee that works exactly as well as it would if I send you a letter indicating that if you don’t reply, you owe me a million dollars. 
Basically what you’re trying to do is create a unilateral contract. You’d have to have been granted those rights of license conversion elsewhere in order to enforce them.
That said, I think @iPersuade is an actual entertainment lawyer. He’d probably have some useful thoughts here.
1 Like
Sure! I don’t mean to imply blame on Paramount or Apple or whoever in this particular case. I think we agree on this, largely, but we’re just hung up on semantics. My point is just that digital ownership =/= real ownership, and these companies all talk about that reality very bluntly behind closed doors. Whether it’s Apple, Paramount, Disney, WB, whoever, it’s all just a legal issue for them.
If you heard these conversations, which I don’t think I’m supposed to disclose in any format at all, you’d be surprised at how little anybody is worried about a good customer experience. It’s entirely about contracts, rights, and the ability to pull content so they can avoid potential legal ramifications. (They also talk a lot about “make sure that’s in the terms of service,” which they readily admit nobody will read.)
I’m not trying to point blame at anybody, and I’m honestly (no offense OP) that interested in this particular incident, but I did want to share the little teeny bit of experience I have in the room during those conversations. It was eye-opening. The first time I experienced this was a couple years ago. I haven’t bought a digital movie since, and I’ve picked up a couple 4K discs of movies I previously owned exclusively digitally, because it was that obvious where this was all going.
2 Likes
I am deeply offended that you are not interested in the minutiae of my life
It has been an interesting thread. Licencing had been a bit of an abstract concept until this happened. I find it quite absurd that it even exists. A movie or TV show is just another product, yet this legal device has been inserted in the middle and accepted as a legitimate way of doing business.
EDIT. Thinking a bit more about this, they have to be careful. If they do it too much, the unintended consequence will be pirating and perhaps a significant drop in digital purchases. Why would I buy something if I knew the manufacturer could come into my house anytime and take it back? I won’t buy another digital download from Amazon again, and I will think twice before buying from anyone else. I (used to) buy quite a lot.
I wonder how many people still “buy” digital movies? It looks like streaming has really cut into downloaded music sales.
This is a frustrating situation, which I myself have even suffered under. Many of the comments here have already honed into the issue. But let me add a little background. Forgive me if this is overly basic, I don’t know what the overall level of knowledge on this subject is.
There are three key concepts to understand that will help understand these murky waters.
First, the products that we are dealing with here are creatures of copyright and creatures of contract law.
Second, there are some distinctions with physical and digital copyrighted works are treated. The chief distinction is what is known as the first sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine means that once you own a physical copy of something, you have the right to sell, display, or dispose of that copy. More specifically:
The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy , notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy . See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) & (c).
This is why you can rent DVDs, borrow books from libraries, buy books at garage sales, etc. There is no first sale doctrine when it comes to digital goods.
The third concept to understand is how copyrighted works are distributed. The first sale doctrine does not apply (whether physical or digital) if the distribution of the work does not convey ownership to the buyer. What? The Copyright Act section that provides the first sale doctrine specifically provides that the privileges created by the first sale principle do not “extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.” See 17 U.S.C. § 109(d).
Almost all digital copyrigted goods – software, books, movies, music – are distributed via license. We the “buyers” are not actually buying a work but licensing it. Our possessory interest and other aspects of ownership are governed by the terms of the license.
With those governing principles out of the way, how does this actually work in terms of iTunes or Amazon or what have you?
Amazon and Apple would gladly give you ownership of the media you are purchasing. The case of the disappearing content is not an Apple or Amazon designed practice. But, Tom, Apple and Amazon are the ones foisting these licenses upon us. True, enough. But that’s because Apple and Amazon are themselves licensed sub-distributors of the works they are selling you. The license that they can sell you in no broader than the license they have from the distributor.
Okay, sure, but why don’t Apple and Amazon negotiate better terms from the distributors so that you actually get to own the products you are ostensibly buying? The short answer is that they can’t. They try, of course.
Ahh, why? Typically, because the distributor is generally not the “owner” of the content it is selling but is itself a licensee of the copyright owner(s).
A motion picture is licensed to a distributor for a period of years: sometimes “in perpetuity,” but often 25, 15, 10, 7, or 3 years. Paramount doesn’t own Star Trek. It has a license. That distribution agreement generally runs hundreds of pages and defines in precise language each of the territories and distribution methods permitted under the agreement.
Keep in mind, that music, movies, and TV shows in particular are almost invariably joint works. A joint work is one where there is more than one copyright author creating a single work that is a unitary whole.
To avoid having multiple copyright owners, motion pictures and TV shows are generally made as works made for hire, meaning that there is one ultimate owner and all the services providers (actors, director, cinematographer, writer) are contractors who are not deemed to be copyright owners. If the motion picture, for example, was not made as a work made for hire, each of these contributors would be owners of the copyright.
(Music publishing is different. In publishing, the custom is for all the composers of a song to retain their copyright interest. So, licensing music can be a bear when you have to get nine different composers (or their publishers) to sign off on a music license agreement. Also keep in mind that there are two copyrights in a musical work. The composition has a copyright and the specific recording of that composition also has a copyright.)
The bottom line, though, is each of those contributors have contracts that delineate the scope of rights that the owner of the work has, and that the owner of the work then can license to the distributor. So, if Carrie Fisher does not grant merchandise rights in her name, voice, or likeness, Kenner cannot make Princess Leia action figures and McDonald’s can’t put her face on a plastic cup in Happy Meals.
That may be a little too far afield of our discussion. I just offer it to make sure you understand that there are some many “creators” involved in these projects and the scope of rights that Apple and Amazon (and others) ultimately receive is largely baked into a distribution agreement that it has no control over.
So, let’s put some meat on these bones. For your reading pleasure, here some excerpts from a motion picture distribution agreement that give you a flavor of the mechanics. Note that this is probably a “middle-ground” set of definitions. There are much more onerous definitions.
The specific distribution “right” that governs “purchases” vs “rentals” of the media is what is called Electronic Sell Through or Download-to-Own. Under this particular agreement, the Electronic Sell Through language does create a perpetual license in the ultimate buyer. I.e., the electronic sell through right would not terminate at the end of the distribution term. Thus, you the buyer, really would have a permanent copy. There could be other things at play that would cause a revocation or termination of the license; all we are focusing on here is the actual grant of rights.
- RIGHTS GRANTED: Licensor grants all rights for all media, markets, platforms and technologies now or hereafter known (“All Rights”) throughout the Territory, for the Distribution Term, and makes the following assurances upon the time of delivery of the Picture, as set forth in Paragraph 5 below:
(a) Grant: Licensor hereby grants to Distributor throughout the Territory the exercise of All Rights specified below, and otherwise existing or yet to exist, with respect to the Picture and trailer thereof, and excerpts and clips therefrom, in any and all languages and versions, including dubbed, subtitled and narrated versions.
(1) Theatrical Rights: “Theatrical Rights” shall mean and include the right to manufacture, distribute, exhibit, market and otherwise exploit the Picture, its sound and music, by and relating to the projection of visual images contained on digital media, or positive film prints of any size or kind (including 35mm and 16mm) whether in movie theaters, drive-ins, churches, or any other venues.
. . . .
(4) Electronic Distribution Rights: “Electronic Distribution Rights” shall mean the right to distribute, exhibit, license, market, sell, publicize, promote, perform or otherwise exploit the Picture, its sound and music, electronically, through any non-analog format. Electronic distribution includes, but is not limited to, delivery of the Picture, or any portion thereof, in a real-time or streaming format (including the right to “pre-cache,” as such term is used in the internet industry) through an Authorized Delivery Means, whether at a time determined by Distributor, the end user, or any third party (“Streaming”); delivery of the Picture, or any portion thereof, through individual download or other delivery by an Authorized Delivery Means that results in a specifically identifiable but temporary reproduction to a Device by or for any recipient (“Download-to-Rent”) and delivery of a Picture, or any portion thereof, through individual download or other delivery by an Authorized Delivery Means that results in a specifically identifiable permanent reproduction to a Device by or for any recipient (“Download-to-Own” or “Electronic Sell-Through”).
. . . .
(9) VOD Rights. “VOD Rights” or “Video-On-Demand" shall mean that method of exhibition of the Picture in which the viewing consumer (as opposed to the exhibitor of the Picture) has the ability to select the time and day of the exhibition of the Picture and the Picture is then transmitted to the viewing consumer (regardless of whether or not a download is required) via wire, cable or over-the-air (including, without limitation, via microwave, satellite, fiberoptics, the Internet or any other non-tangible method of transmission) following the viewing consumer’s selection, the viewing consumer can then view the Picture at such time or at a later point in time, and the viewing consumer may or may not be entitled to embody the Picture in a tangible medium, including, but not limited to, discs, tapes, chips, usb ports and other memory devices. For the avoidance of doubt, Video-On-Demand specifically includes, without limitation, the definitions of “TVOD,” “SVOD,” “AVOD” and “HVOD,” all as more specifically set forth herein below. Video-On-Demand expressly excludes all forms of Electronic Sell-Through including, but not limited to, Download-to-Own and Download-to-Burn.
Keep in mind that the contract specifically defines each of the terms TVOD, SVOD, AVOD, and the like.
I hope this gives some flavor into how these work and why there can be situations where something you bought is no longer yours.
Happy to add to this if it prompts further questions. Also, if it is of interest, i can go back into the contract excerpt and offer some annotations as to what’s going on. I think most of it, while dense, is generally comprehensible.
Like and follow for more entertainment law 101 content.
6 Likes
You must have never been exposed to the dreaded Microsoft EULA Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista’s EULA – OSnews … or had experience with mainframe and mini computer software that was licensed and not sold.
2 Likes