Disappearing Digital Media

Many streaming services offer the option to buy movies or episodes of a television series, but that doesn’t mean that the purchaser now owns the movie or episode forever. Instead, what is being offered is a license, or permission, to view the movie or the episode, which can end if the streaming service itself loses the license to offer the movie to consumers. Is there a way for consumers to keep their access to movies they paid for despite whatever happens to the streaming service’s license to the movie or episode?

Lisa Reingold, an Amazon Prime user, purchased “Bella and the Bulldogs – Volume 4” in May 2025, for a little over $20, but soon after Amazon removed it without her knowledge or permission. She proceeded to file a lawsuit against Amazon for false advertising due to the streaming services’ use of the word “buy.” Consumers like Lisa Reingold want what they believed they were purchasing, or at least for streaming services to be honest about what they are selling. Streaming services like Amazon Prime, however, want the ability to simply advertise their products without confusing potential customers. Additionally, movie studios want their ownership rights to the movies and episodes protected as they haven’t sold those rights to streaming services, only granting licenses.

While courts would apply copyright law to resolve this dispute, we can get a better understanding of this dispute through the lens of real property law and irrevocable licenses in Richardson v. Franc. In this case, two properties were divided by a road and Richardson spent a lot of money providing the landscaping and irrigation on both sides of the road for over twenty years. When Franc moved across the road, he knew about the landscaping and did not ask Richardson to stop for six years. However, after the six years, Franc demanded that Richardson remove everything and cut the irrigation lines that Richarson placed, which led to a lawsuit. The Court held that “a license may become irrevocable when a landowner knowingly permits another to repeatedly perform acts on his or her land, and the licensee, in reasonable reliance on the continuation of the license, has expended time and a substantial amount of money on improvements with the licensor’s knowledge.” The Court held that Richardson had obtained an irrevocable license to landscape as Franc knew that Richardson was providing landscape on Franc’s land, but did not discourage it. Franc also knew that Richardson spent over twenty years and a lot of money relying on his continued ability to landscape both sides of the road. Therefore, the Court recognized that Richardson had an irrevocable license to landscape on Franc’s property.

The irrevocable license rule from Richardson can help to identify what rights Lisa Reingold should have. Richardson holds that an individual has an irrevocable license if they have been allowed repeatedly to do an activity on another person’s property, and has expended time and a substantial amount of money reasonably relying on that person’s permission, all of which the other person knows. Regarding repeated permission, the movie studios and the consumers would agree that the “buying” of a movie or episode constitutes a license to view because streaming services would argue that they do not outright sell the rights to their movies, only permission to view or offer them to consumers and consumers like Reingold would argue that streaming services have given them permission to view movies or television episodes. Both would also agree that streaming services know that the licensees are viewing the material. Regarding expending substantial resources, it is unlikely that a Court would find that time and a substantial amount of money was spent watching movies or television episodes. Regarding time, consumers would argue that, depending on how many hours were spent watching the particular piece of media, they have spent a qualifying amount of time relying on the license to view the material. However, regarding money, streaming services would argue that consumers have not spent a substantial amount of money relying on the license to view the material. Streaming services, like Amazon Prime, would argue that the price for the license is usually under $30 and there are no additional costs as a part of the license, making it far from substantial. However, consumers may argue that there is an additional monthly price to keep the streaming service subscription and access the library where licensed movies are stored. Consumers may argue that, over time, the money spent relying on the license could become substantial, especially if a streaming service is being subscribed to solely for the purpose of a licensed movie or television episode. However, in Reingold’s case, she did not have access to the television episodes for a long period of time, possibly less than a month.

Regarding reasonable reliance, Reingold may argue that she believed that she would always have access to the television episodes as the streaming service advertised that the episodes were available for purchase. Amazon Prime may argue that before consumers complete the transaction, they are told that they are purchasing a license to the episodes and that they can be revoked if the streaming service loses the license. A court would likely find that the disclaimer before the purchase constitutes notice, and therefore, Reingold could not have reasonably relied on having irrevocable access to the episodes. Therefore, a court would likely find that in this scenario, Reingold does not have an irrevocable license because of the lack of time and money she spent relying on the license as she did not have access to the episodes for very long and she only spent $20 on the license and she has not reasonably relied on having an irrevocable license.

Reingold could have increased her chances at an irrevocable license being granted if she had access to the movie for a longer period of time which would have increased the time that she had relied on the license and the amount of money she spent keeping the subscription service to access the episodes. Additionally, Reingold showing examples of reasonable reliance could have also increased her chances at an irrevocable license. For example, if she showed that she spent hundreds of dollars on a sleepover for her daughter and her friends where they planned to watch the series or if she did not buy the DVD believing that she had an option to buy the episodes using a streaming service and no longer has the option of buying the DVD. However, one way to possibly avoid this type of dispute between streaming services and consumers is for streaming services to be honest up front about what they are selling. Streaming services, like Amazon Prime, should use another term for licensing media for long periods of time instead of “buying”. While streaming services may be including licensing language in their contract language, the general public discourse concerning digitally “buying” movies continues to confuse consumers about what they are paying for. A phrase like “long-term rental” could better explain and communicate what consumers are purchasing.

Micah Chandler is a first-year law student at American University Washington College of Law, interested in Criminal Prosecution or Constitutional Impact Litigation.

Image: Andreas Praefcke, AMC Empire 25 (cinema).