[throwaway858]

The consumer did not actually agree to the terms of: "I, the consumer, will pay you $XX to download the film to my device, but you can delete it from my device at any time in the future without giving me a refund".

It may be written in the fine print, but it's not something that most rational consumers willingly agree to.

[josephcsible]

Exactly: take it to its logical conclusion. What if Amazon did this 5 minutes after they took your money for it, so you never got to watch it at all? Obviously that's not what anyone's agreeing to.

[vkou]

The flipside of it is that surely Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe.

Regulation of these shrink-wrap agreements is the only non-insane solution to this problem. Lawsuits are too slow and too expensive, and by the time you get enough people behind one, may be an exercise in squeezing blood out of a rock.

[josephcsible]

> Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe.

That's not their only other choice. They could also let you download the content so you're not dependent on them forever to watch it.

[kube-system]

I mean, they all click agree, because they DGAF about the terms, they just want to use the service. Consumers can absolutely refuse to accept these terms (and some do, like me), they just choose not to.