<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mygoodaccount</author><text>You&amp;#x27;ve implied it&amp;#x27;s permanent transfer of ownership to the state. It&amp;#x27;s not.&lt;p&gt;From wikipedia: &amp;quot;Escheats are performed on a revocable basis. Thus, if property has escheated to a State but the original owner subsequently is found, escheatment is revoked and ownership of the property reverts to that original owner.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Escheat#United_States&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Escheat#United_States&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>BruiseLee</author><text>Actually that is correct in many countries (including US). After a period of inactivity (typically 3-5 years) the bank is required to turn over the money from inactive accounts to the state. This process is called escheatment. I&amp;#x27;m not joking.</text></item><item><author>cblconfederate</author><text>Imagine a bank marketing itself as &amp;quot;No reasonable consumer would believe that their deposits will remain in the bank indefinitely&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;This is a really awe-inspiring, a complete rejection of the concept of ownership</text></item><item><author>hyperman1</author><text>This seams the core of Apple&amp;#x27;s defence:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Apple contends that &amp;#x27;[n]o reasonable consumer would believe&amp;#x27; that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items.&lt;p&gt;This strikes at the root of our society&amp;#x27;s definition of ownership.  Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court.  This should be enshrined by an explicit law.  Using the word  &amp;#x27;license&amp;#x27; or &amp;#x27;rent&amp;#x27; instead of &amp;#x27;buy&amp;#x27; for something you can&amp;#x27;t own seems the minimum a consumer should demand.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple is sued for telling you that you&apos;re “buying” movies</title><url>https://nofilmschool.com/apple-movie-buys</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>BoorishBears</author><text>Only on HN would you need to specify &amp;quot;active account&amp;quot; for such a clear cut analogy. Two replies and both are picking that nit.&lt;p&gt;Apple is admitting regardless of activity, studios can revoke their license to content, removing content from your &lt;i&gt;active&lt;/i&gt; account</text><parent_chain><item><author>BruiseLee</author><text>Actually that is correct in many countries (including US). After a period of inactivity (typically 3-5 years) the bank is required to turn over the money from inactive accounts to the state. This process is called escheatment. I&amp;#x27;m not joking.</text></item><item><author>cblconfederate</author><text>Imagine a bank marketing itself as &amp;quot;No reasonable consumer would believe that their deposits will remain in the bank indefinitely&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;This is a really awe-inspiring, a complete rejection of the concept of ownership</text></item><item><author>hyperman1</author><text>This seams the core of Apple&amp;#x27;s defence:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  Apple contends that &amp;#x27;[n]o reasonable consumer would believe&amp;#x27; that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items.&lt;p&gt;This strikes at the root of our society&amp;#x27;s definition of ownership.  Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court.  This should be enshrined by an explicit law.  Using the word  &amp;#x27;license&amp;#x27; or &amp;#x27;rent&amp;#x27; instead of &amp;#x27;buy&amp;#x27; for something you can&amp;#x27;t own seems the minimum a consumer should demand.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple is sued for telling you that you&apos;re “buying” movies</title><url>https://nofilmschool.com/apple-movie-buys</url></story>