The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly increased the popularity of digital content, but it's also highlighting the fact we don't own any of this content, even if we choose to purchase it for repeat viewing. That's just been made clear in a lawsuit filed against Amazon and its Prime Video service.
As GameSpot reports, Amazon was sued in April by California resident Amada Caudel. In the lawsuit, Caudel claims that "Amazon’s Prime Video service, which allows consumers to purchase video content for streaming or download, misleads consumers because sometimes that video content might later become unavailable if a third-party rights’ holder revokes or modifies Amazon’s license."
It's easy to assume that digital content purchased through Amazon, or any other well-established digital marketplace for that matter, should remain available indefinitely. However, Caudel is correct and Amazon even agrees. In a motion to dismiss the claim, Amazon stated, "These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons."
The terms Amazon is referring to are the Amazon Prime Video Terms of Use. Section 4.i, titled "Availability of Purchased Digital Content" states, "Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions or for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming."
In other words, the content you purchased will be available until it isn't anymore. That means it could remain attached to your account for years to come, or disappear in a few months if licensing terms change. And every time we purchase digital content on Prime Video we agree to these terms even if we don't read them. Amazon also notes this in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating, "an individual does not need to read an agreement in order to be bound by it. A merchant terms of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service."
I think we all knew this was the case already, but it's not something thought about often. I, and I'm sure many others, just assume the content was purchased and will always be available. Now we just have to wait and see what a US District Court in California has to say about it.