Dead Game News: Lawsuit against Apple

Is this about misleading 'buy' buttons? Hmmm...

I agree. All purchases in shteam or other bullshit platforms must be called what they are - "digital rent".

this might be related

As some people have noted in the comments, iTunes and Apple Music already use DRM such that, even if content you buy is downloaded to your system, you still need their software to actually open it. So, while I don't know the specifics of movies from iTunes (I haven't touched anything Apple since getting a smartphone in 2012), there's a chance that such movies are still encrypted and that Apple has a #2 situation set up anyways. Thus, there's an opening for the lawsuit.

One of the things that I think hurts Ross's advocacy on this issue is the fact that, by his own admission, he goes out of his way to compensate game creators as a little as possible. I have seen the donation list, and Ross makes more money in a year than I do, and I have enough money to occasionally buy a game at full price. I know at least if I were a game creator I would have a hard time sympathizing with his cri de coeur of being defrauded of something he owns when he he made sure to only pay two bucks for it. 

Not that I'm saying Ross is wrong. He isn't. But I very much think that he is not the ideal person to be making the arguments that he does. Because if everyone paid for games the way he does, the game industry wouldn't exist at all. 

The last time I checked, Apple does require a computer or iThingy that has at some point been connected to your iTunes account in order to play your video content. I don't know if that's pointed out in the suit or not, but I hope it is. It's probably the most relevant piece of information. Also the last time I checked, if you bought a movie and it was later de-listed from sale, it was also unavailable for re-downloading, which is in stark contrast to how Steam has always worked.

And while we can argue about buyers' responsibilities (I've used a similar analogy to your chair thing with people who think the copy protection on Blu-Rays and console game discs violates some inherent right to make backups)... we're talking about Apple, a company with more than enough resources to keep a copy of every single thing they've ever offered. Hell, Apple even holds onto old versions of iOS apps so people can download them if their devices are too old to be compatible with the new ones anymore. (I haven't owned one long enough to have firsthand experience with this. Just going off what I've heard.) I don't think it's too much to ask that they allow people to re-download the things they "bought" for as long as the service continues to exist. There's a difference between speculating that Apple might at some future point restrict access to their products and extant cases where they already have.

(Also, those two things might intersect? Like, maybe even if you already downloaded a movie that's been delisted, if you want to transfer it to a new machine, iTunes won't validate it anymore? I'll need people to weigh in with their personal experiences on this.)

The real problem here, I think, is that Apple's hands are likely tied with regards to both these things. The entertainment industry demanded those limitations in exchange for licensing their products for "sale". If the suit doesn't name any of them as defendants, then Apple is going to get squeezed from both ends. The entertainment companies aren't going to accept "A judge is making me change my policies" as a reason to change theirs. We'll probably just see iTunes get shut down entirely instead. I can't imagine it's still making that much money for Apple or the content distributors now that everyone's all about streaming.