I feel like I need to point out from a technical perspective, you absolutely can own digital media, it's just that people are rightly noticing almost all major studios now are in favour of making you rent your game.
You're absolutely right that is technically possible to create a digital copy that you truly own. Unfortunately the courts don't treat you as owning digital content, even if it was purported to be a purchase rather than a rental.
This should have been bright letter law: courts have always ruled the clauses buried in contracts are void when they contradict The up front language that a customer should be able to take at face value. Meaning, if Amazon says you are "buying" a digital copy of a movie, the universally accepted understanding is that that means it becomes yours in perpetuity and you are also free to resell it. If their licensing agreements with the studios don't allow them to sell something in this manner, then legally they shouldn't be allowed to purport that you can "buy" the film from them. To allow otherwise is to allow Amazon to commit fraud.
I suspect the same holds true for every other digital purchase: buried in the terms somewhere is a statement that you "own" your purchase only so long as the seller wants to maintain your access.
Yes, in the TOS, but it directly contradicts the plain language verbiage regarding Amazon's offer to purchase the movie. The options presented on the product page are "rent" or "buy" not "rent" or "rent indefinitely".
Under US law, when the technical terms of a contract contradict the plain language of the purported offer, they are void. This was hashed out long before computers even existed, because you have always had swindlers that would do shit like advertise a car on a car lot and then when you sign the actual purchase contract they buried a line in there that says you're buying a Hot Wheels car for $30,000.
The court in this case erred by allowing Amazon to continue using the language "buy or purchase" on the product page as their licensing agreement never gave them the authority to sell the film in the first place. It's intentionally deceptive, as they know what they are offering you is in fact an indefinite rental.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about offering an indefinite rental, the problem is that they represented it as a purchase instead of what it really was
You're absolutely right that is technically possible to create a digital copy that you truly own. Unfortunately the courts don't treat you as owning digital content, even if it was purported to be a purchase rather than a rental.
In this CA case, the court ruled in favor of Amazon because buried in their terms of service it says you don't really own your purchase, even though the website clearly makes the distinction between buying and renting a movie and it doesn't say anywhere that anyone would actually read that "buy" means something other than its common usage: https://www.askthelawyers.com/read-article/lawsuit-confirms-that-customers-dont-own-movies-purchased-on-amazon-prime
This should have been bright letter law: courts have always ruled the clauses buried in contracts are void when they contradict The up front language that a customer should be able to take at face value. Meaning, if Amazon says you are "buying" a digital copy of a movie, the universally accepted understanding is that that means it becomes yours in perpetuity and you are also free to resell it. If their licensing agreements with the studios don't allow them to sell something in this manner, then legally they shouldn't be allowed to purport that you can "buy" the film from them. To allow otherwise is to allow Amazon to commit fraud.
I suspect the same holds true for every other digital purchase: buried in the terms somewhere is a statement that you "own" your purchase only so long as the seller wants to maintain your access.
Yes, in the TOS, but it directly contradicts the plain language verbiage regarding Amazon's offer to purchase the movie. The options presented on the product page are "rent" or "buy" not "rent" or "rent indefinitely".
Under US law, when the technical terms of a contract contradict the plain language of the purported offer, they are void. This was hashed out long before computers even existed, because you have always had swindlers that would do shit like advertise a car on a car lot and then when you sign the actual purchase contract they buried a line in there that says you're buying a Hot Wheels car for $30,000.
The court in this case erred by allowing Amazon to continue using the language "buy or purchase" on the product page as their licensing agreement never gave them the authority to sell the film in the first place. It's intentionally deceptive, as they know what they are offering you is in fact an indefinite rental.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about offering an indefinite rental, the problem is that they represented it as a purchase instead of what it really was