Revocation should come with full refunds.
That would:
1. Balance the revocation economically, for both parties, while leaving the decision to the "seller".
2. The trade becomes the time-value of money vs. the time value of access. Inherently fair. The seller nets interest, and the inflation drop on the original price. What an accountant would come up with, yet automatic.
3. Provide users the remunerative recourse for "resuming" their "perpetual" license with another provider.
4. Motivate the avoidance of revocations, as who wants to have anti-sales.
Maybe there are good reasons for revocations. Fine, but purchasers should not "Get" randomly screwed, while the seller who had control of their sourcing arrangements loses nothing.
"Get" instead of "Buy" does not address the problem. If "Get" requires the user to gamble, it should be "Gamble". "Get for five years" or "Get for 5 viewings" would be ok. But "Get" without a clear definition is inherently misleading. Another dark pattern.
(Also: By law, contracts must be something given for something taken. A one-sided uncompensated nullification-at-will option is a sneaky way around that. Companies that nullify without compensation, or less than full price where the licensing agreement made no refund amount declaration, should be required to return customer money with interest to reflect the bad faith contract. IANAL, just a believer in justice, especially where simple accounting provides answers.)
This presumes that it is reasonable for a seller to remove the capacity in principle to buy the digital good. They might refuse ever to sell a copy again, and only permit renting it. Since copyright grants a long monopoly this opens up scope for crazy market distortion - you could, for instance, delete the Beatles discography from the entire world until the price doubles. This tends not to happen, but there is nothing preventing it, and it seems inherently wrong.
Also they would need to adjust the refund it with inflation.
Plus interest
Plus interest makes no sense and is unnessary. Adjusting for inflation is so the person can buy the same movie at today's prices. At that point, the person is made more than whole already because they got to see the movie for free and they can chose to get it again.
If they are able to prove it somehow transparently that movie was watched at least once, reduce the amount of renting it based on the time when it was bought. Is that fair? Return the rest with inflation adjustments.
When you buy an option, you don't deserve a refund for not exercising the option.
On the other side, a user that watched a movie 1000 times should not get less compensation.
All users are being impacted exactly the same way (loss of future access), so should be compensated the same way.
No it’s not fair.
They've stolen the property. It’s not “fair” if you replace it, let alone only replace it with a lesser than value as “it was second hand”.
The interest and inflation are the time value of money, which you pay, for the time value of access.
Original-price refund is both simple, and (by linking the time-value of money for both parties) fair.
A consumer friendly policy could be:
1. Proration for a "lifetime" access (87 years) denied. In many cases probably close to 90% refunded.
2. irrespective, a Full refund for those who had never viewed the purchase.
3. A refund equal to the purchase price on the streaming platform newly acquired. Or a lifetime access (87 years) of the monthly billed streaming platform.
Or get this - you get a drm free copy and they let you redownload/stream it for and undefined (hopefully long) period of time. After that you can play your copy or use a copy from elsewhere.