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?

  • explodicle@local106.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Refunding the sale price is still theft. If it was only worth that much to me (zero surplus), then I wouldn’t have bothered with the trade in the first place. The only things worth buying are worth more to you than the sale price.

      • backgroundcow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Refunding the sale price is still theft.

        What did you lose in this theft?

        Is there really nothing in your home right now you would be sad if someone took and just gave you the money you paid for it?

        Even a digital copy of a movie may not be so easy to replace on the services I have access to.

        Stores are not allowed to go home to people and take back the stuff they sold, even if they refund the price. Neither should a company that advertise “pay this price and own this movie” rather than “pay this price and rent it for an indeterminate time”.

          • backgroundcow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Especially if the media is readily available elsewhere which is always the case for movies you “bought” digitally.

            Except when they aren’t. Especially if located outside the US, it is far from obvious that a given movie is available through another service.

    • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh I had never thought of this or come across this concept! That’s a really elegant concept. Of course, in a transaction you’re putting in more effort than the money. The time it takes you to go through the purchase, the research, the cost of opportunity of that money… meaning those have to be covered in the cost of the transaction, and therefore the goods must be cheaper than the perceived value by those amounts.

      You’ve sent me down a rabbit hole and I thank you for that. Now I’m off to read about economics 🤓