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:
Get this stuff on actual DVD or bluray. Put it all in archival boxes if you dont have the space.
Ooorrrrrr you can play the video, and split the HDMI with a decoder box and record with something like a haupage recorder (records to usb flash)
I’ve legitimately lost hundreds of dollars of content without even getting refunded; So consider yourself lucky! To get a gift card instead; ANYWAY I now pirate all my things minus idk I guess my video game consumption but even then I had the luxury to pirate shit I bought on steam just to have it again. In the end of the day though you don’t really own anything unless you own it physical and even then its still illegal to use makemkv to dump your blurays and dvds onto your nas and watch them outside of the physical media they were put on. But I guess thats just living in the future for ya!
If people suddenly collectively understood they’re paying for basically nothing it would probably spur large-scale revolution.
actually that seems fair. they gave you an extra 5
if steam refunded all my games i would be so happy
Are you a fellow janitor?
Because I know a whole bunch of janitors that recently watched that movie.
Lol.
There might be something else going on, because my YouTube feed was recently bombarded with a bunch of clips of Superman 2 Richard donner cut.
Upvoted out of curiosity
Can’t have shit in the cloud
As I said(probably) in another post, you own nothing since you sing up and accept the terms. They can change the terms when ever they want, they can remove videos when ever they want or the rights for a movie or series end. If you want to have something, find a provider that sells and lets download files, so you don’t lose what you buy.
This is why I don’t buy digital media (other than games).
I pay the fee to stream but I won’t give them more money to “buy” their movies or “rent” them.
Companies issuing refunds in the form of gift cards is just straight-up insulting
And is that amount of money enough to replace the item that’s been taken away? Like if the DVD were widely available at the same price at the time of the digital purchase, but you got the Amazon “purchase” instead (for convenience?) then what are the odds that you can still get the DVD for that price today?
And it may be illegal in some states to not offer the customer an actual refund.
Wait a minute, the US doesn’t have a blanket consumer law federally?
This sounds like a pain.
Federally this is against Australian Consumer Law. Didn’t offer the service you paid for? Better believe that’s a refund.
Our government is trash, you see.
£5.99 refund. Quite clearly not in the US.
Sssh… Everyone lives in default country
Default country is best country.
Religious figure bless default country.
Default religious figure bless default country
Death to default country and its default god! Alternative god reigns supreme!
Take me down to %DEFAULT_CITY where the grass is %DEFAULT_COLOR and the girls are %DESCRIPTIVE_ADJECTIVE
TAKE… ME… %DEFAULT_LOCATION
Take me down to null island where the grass is black and the girls are null
Sweet home %DEFAULT_CITY, where the skies are so %DEFAULT_COLOUR
TBH I would expect stronger consumer protections in the UK…but I definitely don’t know about this type of refund specifically.
The UK, for all its problems, does typically have some of the best consumer protections in the world. I can see Amazon being forced to overturn this if there’s enough uproar (which there might not be tbf, seeing as they gave extra credit as compo).
Many countries other than the US are comprised of a federation of states. And also those that aren’t are generally considered nation states or sovereign states, which are still definitively states. The United States of America do not have an exclusive right on statehood.
Plus even though it may be implied that the original replier intended the context to mean the United States of America… it is a valid response with further implication that one should check their local jurisdiction’s laws if they were so inclined to do so.
I know they probably actually meant the States of the US, but…
They did say states with a lowercase s. ‘States’ = regions within a country, ‘states’ = can mean countries. Technically they aren’t defaulting to the US.
£ is from a country that does not have states
country = states != States
Technically no. Greenland is a country but not a state. It has a sovereign government but is not represented directly internationally. It is part of the Kingdom of Denmark which is a state but not a country. Then there is Denmark proper which is also a country but not a state.
I had no idea about any of this, thanks! Never thought a thread about prime video would teach me world geography lol
Amazon is from a country that does.
But it IS a state. Sorry if you’re not a native English speaker but just because your vocabulary is lacking doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Like the person you’re replying to said, some people use state and country as synonyms sometimes
removed by mod
And those people are Americans.
By suggesting that English is only spoken widely in the US, you yourself are engaging in US-Defaultism! Checkmate, citizen of !
Yup the term state to refer to a nation or sovereign territory is an American thing, for sure dude.
A gift card is not a refund.
It’s just a long term licence to watch it
It’s easy to scoff at this whole “You will own nothing, and you will be happy” phrase, but it’s really gone too far already.
I’m really tired of hearing “you don’t own it you own a license to it” like it’s some revelation for people complaining. We’re aware that the system has been constructed to benefit media companies at the expense of consumers.
To be honest; I never really bought the argument anyway. From a legal standpoint I don’t give half a shit. From a layman’s standpoint it’s bullshit. Nowhere do they use terms like “rent” or “lease”. They explicitly use terms like “buy” and it’s not until the fine print that the term license even comes up.
They know they’re pissing on you and telling you it’s raining and the goobers doing their legwork by repeating the sentence like they just came up with it annoy me to no end.
I think it makes sense in some areas. For example private ownership of cars is completely unsustainable in the literal sense of the word.
But when it comes to digital goods, clearly it’s all for the profit of the media cartels. There’s no justification.
This sounds worse than communism. At least communism said “everyone will own everything”.
We’ve been screaming about it for 20+ years now and no one seems to be listening.
I’m hoping that someone will tie digital ownership rights to a block chain sooner or later and offer me movies, music, games and books that I can actually own resale rights to - but as publishers are already drinking from the rent-seeking model teat where every single license is a new sale I’m not terribly optimistic about that particular future.
Adding blockchain into the mix changes nothing. Whether your digital ownership is stored in their centralized database or a distributed database, they still have control over everything because they’re the ones streaming it to you. They can just as well block your access & block resale.
The only way to actually digitally own something is to have a full DRM-free copy of it (ianal though this still might not be enough to allow resale).
Right, either you have the file on your computer, or you don’t. You still can’t legally resell the file because that’s piracy. Computer files can be copied pretty much endlessly.
Adding blockchain into the mix changes nothing. Whether your digital ownership is stored in their centralized database or a distributed database, they still have control over everything because they’re the ones streaming it to you. They can just as well block your access & block resale.
So you push digital goods to a robust public platform like IPFS and tie decryption to a signed, non-revokable, rights token that you own on a block chain. It’s a transparent and consumer friendly model compared to what we accept now. I know people are over block chain hype but this type of publishing model is where it’s actually useful.
Transferable digital rights tokens and chain of custody are places where block chain tech actually works.
Edit: People seem really hung up on crypto as currency which I’m not asking for at all. I’m asking for control, ownership and resale rights to digital goods I’ve paid for which isn’t possible at all on current digital publishing platforms. I appreciate that people hate crypto shit, that’s fine, but at least read the content you’re replying to.
Keep it in your hard drive and carry it with you, this was not a hard problem 20 years ago, but we’re being conditioned to regression in expectations and functionality. Better than yet another blockchain overkill and works offline.
PS: just like the creeptobros say: “not in your disk, not your file.” or something like that.
block chain
No. Never. Stop asking. Crypto is not a currency and blockchain is a solution in search of a problem.
This is why I continue to buy high quality Blu-ray releases for films I love. Physical media is something you own. I generally rip it and put it on a Plex server for easy access and it reduces wear and tear on my precious criterion discs.
This is the way it has been working for quite some time with all digital distribution networks.
The shocking thing here is that you get compensation, Apple e.g. has never done that, in the past they did not even send a notification if they deleted something from your library.
Yes, the whole concept is scummy. But Amazon at least tries as best as they can in the context of licenses from third parties…
They’ve done this previously with books, music, and other media purchased through them and they aren’t alone. Apple and Google have also been on the hook for this. This usually happens when they lose the right to sell some form of media (they make deals with record labels, artists, movie companies, publishers etc to license the right to sell that media for the purpose of streaming). You’re buying the right to stream/enjoy that media indefinitely (until they lose the rights to sell it to you and then they have to remove it from their library of streamable media). You can absolutely download that media and keep it somewhere not connected to the internet. But they can absolutely remove it.
The one exception used to be Google Play Music. Their terms were such that you actually owned the music you purchased. I assume that’s part of the reason they sunsetted that app and their music selling altogether. The cost was too high vs the number of paid users.
Apple has also done this and it was a big deal because they didn’t notify customers at all at the time.
Edit: I’m gonna add that this licensing agreement is similar to the one made when we bought physical media from retail stores. They have the right to sell it until their licensing agreement runs out. When or if it runs out they send back their remaining inventory and proof that they sold everything else. And the only reason a company isn’t requesting that media back in this event is because it’s cost prohibitive for them.
Of course they’re able to.
They’re a digital platform. Unless something is DRM free, this shit is likely to happen at some point.
