You all remember just a few weeks ago when Sony ripped away a bunch of movies and TV shows people “owned”? This ad is on Amazon. You can’t “own” it on Prime. You can just access it until they lose the license. How can they get away with lying like this?
this is why i still buy cds and dvds
Yep. I still like owning Blu-ray’s for this reason. When I tell people I have a Blu-ray collection they make fun of me.
Head by the dollar store sometime, Blu-Rays on crazy discount these days.
Clearly they don’t own a nuclear bunker
Do they at least come with cool bonus features?
1080p video streams are also much more compressed than BD. I can’t always tell, but when I can it’s because there are distracting artifacts on the stream.
deleted by creator
I definitely do not value having lifetime access to 99.999% of the media I consume enough to have to deal with hoarding physical copies.
“I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWHAHAHAHAHQHAHAHAHAHAHQHQHhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah………………
You just can’t see the microscopic “for” in “OWN IT ^for NOW”
You can save up to 77% if you buy now.
you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy.
You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.
That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.
That is what they pretend it is, but sales like that are intended to be FOMO to convince people who were reluctant to buy ‘just in case because it is so cheap’. Like not even someone who balks at the price, just someone doesn’t want to risk changing their mind later.
That is how companies entice people to buy things they were not even interested in before the sale.
For sure. An implied sense of false urgency is the point of sales in general. There’s all sorts of psychology around manipulating people into buying things.
I just think that acting as if there is some sort of grammatical error or gap in logic is missing the fact that in language, people imply things. And an ad implying “you’re going to buy this, so you better do it while costs less” isn’t too hard to follow.
The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing.
Sure, but that’s the assumption created by the advertisement. If you’re debating buying something, and the ad says “You can save up to 77% if you buy now” then suddenly the presupposition is (sneakily!) introduced that you are going to buy it. In that case, identifying and rejecting the presupposition is the smarter thing to do.
Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.
but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.
“I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.
Statement 1: “You can save up to 77% if you buy now”
Statement 2: “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy”
Statement 2a: “save 77% compared to buying at full price”
Statement 2b: “Save 77% compared to not buying the item”
Statement 2’s first use of “save” suggests that of Statement 2a, and Statement 2’s second use of “save” suggests that of Statement 2b. Statement 1’s use of the word “save” corresponds to that of Statement 2a. I don’t think we disagree on the semantics, though we may be phrasing things a little differently.
You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.
I agree that the original poster was playing a semantics game; indeed, I interpret Statement 2 as follows.
Interpetation A: Statement 2 is a witticism that plays off the contextual use of the word “save”. Specifically, the humorous force of Statement 2 is in its reinterpretation of the word “save”. Statement 2 is saying: “Statement 1’s use of the word ‘save’ is that of Statement 2a, but I choose to reinterpret Statement 1’s use of the word ‘save’ to that of Statement 2b!”
Comment 1: The reinterpretation performed by Statement 2 is mildly subversive in that it rejects Statement 1’s interpretation of ‘save’.
Comment 2: The reinterpretation performed by Statement 2 is mildly empowering in that it performs a reinterpetation of ‘save’ to the benefit of the writer.
You say “refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever”. There’s a bit of an aesthetic judgment to the “doesn’t make you clever” part which we can agree to disagree on. But Interpretation A does not depend on “refusing to accept the implications”. Rather, it accepts the implication, and subverts it to provide the effects described in Comments 1 and 2.
Note: The original post that started this discussion seems to be unavailable apparently because the original poster (I am not the original poster) deleted it. I believe we are just discussing among ourselves.
It’s smarter, but only if you don’t really care about getting the thing since not buying means you don’t get the thing
I am on the belief that once I buy something, let’s say Spiderman No Way Home, on streaming services, I am entitled to download it offline from anywhere for my own Jellyfin.
No one, or even biggest corp, can change my view.
Downloading stuff like this for personal use is in fact perfectly legal in many countries
In some countries making a private copy isn’t legal if copy protections are in place. Even if those copy protections are useless.
If only they allowed you to do it easily…
Laughs in screen record
Well it is easy.
It’s just they don’t allow it.
One out of two ain’t bad.
Even if you don’t pay for it?
They said buy, which means paying.
In Switzerland it technically is legal. Only hosting for others is illegal.
Depends on the country
Wait, you mean I don’t actually own Jason Momoa now? What about my kingdom, do I still own that? (It’s hard to tell, since it’s lost.)
You merely own a license that allows you to access Jason Momoa.
Are people really out here buying a media that can only be viewed through an app? If it’s not a file that can be downloaded and viewed elsewhere then I’m definitely not going for it… Who am I kidding? The seas have always been the life for me landlubbers!!
Because they control the FTC and any other regulatory agencies. It’s called regulatory capture. The only other way they can be held accountable is through the pay to play court system which is biased towards them because they can drag it out until the other party gives up.
This is the answer.
All fed regulatory agencies are captured at this point.
I just do the morally correct thing. Buy it, then pirate it so I really do own it forever. Inconvenient from a data storage perspective but the only simple solution I have on hand.
It’s amazon. They pay actors and writers pennies and funding Amazon is itself completely immoral by any means. Even after the “fix” of the recent agreement.
Don’t get me wrong. I do it because Prime has shit I can’t get elsewhere. So I have to on some levels. But I don’t unless I have to to get what I need to do what I do.
Doesn’t matter. We’re all gonna die in that decade we’re now well into my original prediction of. Baking the planet, inventing viruses bro-/tech-/etc.-, Closed Source AI, etc. etc.
2030: We’re all gonna die.
I don’t agree that it is ‘morally correct’ to pay $20 for a shitty movie that cost over $100 million to make when that money could have gone to fund 5 much smaller, much better movies just so the studio could shovel money into their Scrooge McDuck moneybin with yet another multimedia tie-in.
Mmm… Sure. I think it’s morally correct for yourself. But the copyright people? They’ll argue all day that you shouldn’t be allowed to pirate it even after ownership. You need to buy the same movie on, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, purple-ray, AND omni-ray when it comes out. After all, there’s money to be made.
Format shifting is legal in the U.S.
It’s distribution that’s an issue.
I don’t know about the laws where you live. But here it is legal to make ‘security copies’ of any medium you bought. If you have to crack some kind of protection, that is an inconvenience.
You are just not allowed to distribute any copies without the proper license.
deleted by creator
Won’t someone think of the shareholders!
Or don’t buy it, then pirate it.
Depends on what it is. I’ll freeboot full priced games by well known companies that I don’t want to support but smaller games from studios trying their heart out? I’m a sucker for chucking money at them.
Or don’t buy it and don’t pirate it either. Fuck em. This shit isn’t even worth pirating.
Wouldn’t call that piracy.
100%. That’s a backup.
Sometimes I do what I call “time travelling” where I pirate first with the intention to buy later when it’s cheaper.
I do that too but I call it a “forced demo”
How can they get away with lying like this?
The own* the people who decide what they can get away with.
*as in actually own, not their single-instance redefinition of “own” where it means ‘definitely do not own’
It should be noted that Amazon was among the first to prove that buying isn’t owning a few years ago when a book that many people had legally bought was automatically scrubbed feom devices. The title had been removed from the catalog, and any kindle which held it automatically removed it without the users concent, and they were given amazon store credit in return.
This would be illegal in most EU countries.
This SHOULD be illegal in EVERY country.
Not that I’d actually want to own any DCU movie, but yeah, that’s just patently false.
Own the temporary license.
So it’s basically an NFT.
Worse than an NFT because you’ll always have access to NFTs as long as you have access to your wallet, whether it’s worth anything or not.
Don’t NFTs have more protections? If I sell you an NFT, I can’t unilaterally revoke it.
Ok you’re right. This is worse than NFTs.
🥸 well you see, you own a digital license to watch the movie so long as we have it available, have you read our terms of agreement–
Agreed that this is scummy marketing, though. The only real way to own media (legally) anymore is through physical copies, and even then maybe there’s some provision that makes a DVD illegal due to license shenanigans… but no cop’s gonna bust down your door for owning an illegal DVD of Aquaman.
