The Analytical Musician

On August 21, 2025, Lisa Reingold filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action lawsuit claims that Amazon misrepresented the consumers’ ownership rights during the purchase process on its Amazon Prime Video platform. Reingold argues that Amazon advertised that consumers could “buy” or “purchase” digital copies of movies and TV shows. The suit also states that Amazon failed to disclose that consumers were only receiving a limited license to access the content, which Amazon could revoke at any time. Regardless of whether the courts decide in favor of Reingold, this case highlights the ambiguity associated with digital assets and the complex interplay between technology and jurisprudence in the digital entertainment industry.

The term “Property” has an ambiguous legal definition with different meanings depending on its context. The term can simultaneously refer to both the object that belongs to an individual and the rights associated with that object. The backbone of legally defining property is possession, which the law treats as a right. Traditionally, this term refers to a person (the owner) who has full possession of the property. Common law distinguishes between tangible and intangible goods as part of the concept of property. The ownership of any property is about the rights associated with owning property and excluding others from its use. Within the legal system, property rights recognize a special relationship between a person and a particular good. However, property rights exist because the law treats certain goods as protected objects. These rights concern legal constructs called things. In the United States, the US Constitution does not create property interests. Property protection falls under state laws, with federal regulations providing exclusive rights only in exceptional cases, such as copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

The general shift in the entertainment industry from an ownership paradigm to an access model is a term that many scholars have dubbed the “post-ownership economy” (Belk, 2014) or the “age of access” (Rifkin, 2000). Based on several studies, digital rights have a significant influence on a consumer’s perception of ownership. The concept of digital ownership is relatively new and continues to evolve. Most transactions, in fact, involve end-user license agreements that regulate user rights. However, issues associated with digital ownership are not new to the entertainment industry. In 2009, Amazon customers who purchased George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm found that “purchased” copies were removed from their Kindle devices by the company. It appears that the seller did not have the rights to the books, which prompted Amazon to remove the content directly from the purchaser’s Kindle. Similarly, Apple Music removed downloaded music, and in some cases a customer’s own compositions, after they had cancelled their subscriptions. On October 18, 2021, a class action was filed in the District Court for the Western District of New York against Apple by Trenise McTyere and Lucille Clark. The class action alleged that Apple misled consumers into believing they were purchasing digital content on iTunes, when in fact they were only being provided with a license to use the content. The plaintiffs claimed that once a customer has “purchased” digital content and saved it to their “purchased” folder, Apple should not be able to suspend or terminate access to it. In response, Apple stated that, “when a licensing agreement is terminated, Apple is required to pull the digital content from a consumer’s purchased folder and can do so without prior warning to the consumer […]” (McTyere et al v. Apple Inc.). Although the court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss the class action, the plaintiffs’ claims under the New York General Business Law, as well as their claim for unjust enrichment, were allowed to proceed.

In one of the most comprehensive attempts to address digital “ownership”, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that aims to bring transparency to the question of ownership of digital goods. On January 1, 2025, the California Digital Property Rights Transparency bill (AB 2426) took effect. Under this law, sellers and advertisers of digital goods — such as digital games, movies, music, or e-books — must explicitly disclose to consumers when they are obtaining a license or purchasing unrestricted ownership of a digital asset. This law is part of a package of bills designed to strengthen consumer protections across various industries. Specifically, the new law prohibits digital sellers and advertisers from using terms — such as “buy” or “purchase” — that imply unrestricted ownership of a digital good. Companies must ensure that consumers understand when they are receiving a license to access a digital product, along with the associated restrictions and conditions, or when they are purchasing with full ownership rights. The bill also mandates that companies must provide consumers with a clear statement that “buying” or “purchasing” a digital good is simply a license. This statement must include a link to the terms and conditions of the license.

A limited number of services are exempt from the requirements of this bill including subscription-based services (where a digital good is offered solely for the duration of the subscription), the advertising or offering of free digital goods (such as no-cost downloads), and digital goods to which the seller cannot revoke access after the transaction (such as digital goods that can be permanently downloaded and stored). The implications of this law for online companies are significant, as it will require a fundamental shift in the advertising and sale of digital goods.

Given that the music industry is likely to rely on digital distribution for the foreseeable future, establishing legal frameworks for the ownership of digital music, as well as other digital assets such as tokens, cryptocurrencies, and data, has become paramount. Not only do federal and state governments need to create legislation to define digital ownership, but music organizations must clearly indicate whether a consumer owns a music product or has been merely granted a license for its use for a limited time, based on the rights granted to the distributor. It is therefore an imperative that music companies clearly explain three types of property rights associated with digital distribution: (1) what the ownership of the virtual good itself entails, (2) what rights are associated with the virtual good, and (3) what rights are associated with the intellectual property embedded in or associated with a virtual good. If music companies do not address these ownership rights, class action suits will continue to flourish until governments step in to regulate the industry.

Reference

Belk, Russell. 2014. “You are what You can Access: Sharing and Collaborative Consumption Online,” Journal of Business Research 67 (8): 1595-1600.

McTyere et al v. Apple, Inc., No. 1:2021cv01133 – Document 30 (W.D.N.Y. 2023)

Rifkin, Jeremy. The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where all of Life is a Paid-for Experience. J.P. Tarcher/Putnam 2000.