A proposed class-action suit alleges that Amazon Prime's 'buy' option is deceptive because purchases are actually revocable viewing licenses rather than perpetual ownership. The complaint argues that buying implies perpetual possession, yet platform fine print permits titles to be delisted and access revoked. Streaming promised always-available digital libraries but licensing churn and platform decisions create impermanence. Viewers searching for older films often find titles listed on services only to encounter landing pages offering reminders or showing unavailability. Physical copies like Blu-rays continue to provide reliable ownership. Digital 'purchases' therefore function more like ephemeral access tied to corporate licensing.
Regardless of whether the lawsuit is ultimately successful, it speaks to a real problem in an age when people access films, television series, music and video games through fickle online platforms: impermanence. The advent of streaming promised a world of digital riches in which we could access libraries of our favorite content whenever we wanted. It hasn't exactly worked out that way.
Let's say that you are seized, this Friday night, by an urge to rewatch one of your favorite films, Double Indemnity. (You are a popular and sociable person charismatic, attractive, with many friends but feel under the weather this weekend.) If you are especially prudent, you own the film on a physical format such as a Criterion Collection Blu-ray but if not, you just type watch double indemnity 1944 into a search engine and see what comes up.
Collection
[
|
...
]