You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
from the bad-apple dept
Once again, copyright and the digitization of everything means you no longer “own” what you’ve “bought.” I thought we’d covered all this a decade ago when Kindle owners discovered that, even though they’d “purchased” copies of the ebook of George Orwell’s 1984, their books had been memory holed, thanks to Amazon losing a license. After there was an uproar, Amazon changed its system and promised such things would never happen again. You would think that other online stores selling digital items would remember this and design their systems not to do this — especially some of the largest.
Enter Apple and its infamous iTunes store. On Twitter, Anders G da Silva has posted a thread detailing how three of the movies he “purchased” have now disappeared and how little Apple seems to care about this:
Me: Hey Apple, three movies I bought disappeared from my iTunes library.
Apple: Oh yes, those are not available anymore. Thank you for buying them. Here are two movie rentals on us!
Me: Wait… WHAT?? @tim_cook when did this become acceptable? pic.twitter.com/dHJ0wMSQH9— Anders G da Silva (@drandersgs) September 10, 2018
Part 2:
Me: I am not really interested in the rentals. I want my movies back or my money back.
Apple: I totally get how you feel…
Me: Condescending, but go one…
Apple: You see, we are just a store front.
Me: Store front?
1/7 pic.twitter.com/U1D3Wj0zmZ
— Anders G da Silva (@drandersgs) September 11, 2018
Apple: Yeah, we take your money, but we are not responsible for what is sold. And,
we certainly do NOT guarantee you get to keep anything you buy in our store front.
We only guarantee that we get to keep your money.2/7
— Anders G da Silva (@drandersgs) September 11, 2018
Me: I see… So, that "Buy" button is meaningless? It should maybe be called: "Feelin Lucky?"
Apple: I see you are unhappy. Have two more rentals on us.
3/7
— Anders G da Silva (@drandersgs) September 11, 2018
My guess is that with this tweet getting lots and lots of attention, Apple will eventually back down and “fix” the situation. But it shouldn’t take going viral for you to not have the stuff you bought disappear thanks to a change in licensing. Indeed, it does seem like Apple telling users that they are “buying” content that might later disappear due to changes in licensing agreements could potentially be a deceptive practice that could lead to FTC or possibly state consumer protection claims:
I would love to file an FTC complaint about this. You shouldn?t be able to insist it?s a license and not a sale for copyright purposes and then advertise it as a sale to reap a higher price. Live by the sword, die by the sword. https://t.co/A2mk1nHRRF
— Blake Reid (@blakereid) September 12, 2018
Last year we had a podcast about a new book by two copyright professors about the “end of ownership” due to excessive copyright usage, and this is just yet another unfortunate example of what has happened when we lock everything up. You don’t own what you’ve bought.
And, yes, it is not endorsing or advocating for piracy to note that this is one of the reasons why people pirate. Content that people pirate doesn’t magically disappear when licenses change and giant multinational companies decide to reach into your library and memory hole your purchases. Don’t want people to pirate so much? Stop doing this kind of anti-consumer bullshit.
Filed Under: buy button, consumer protection, copyright, deceptive practices, disappearing content, itunes, licenses, movies
Companies: apple
Comments on “You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies”
You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
From my just posted in prior — likely already censored — but won’t again for focus:
) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there’s no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.
) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
By the way, twice for first time in months, got "One More Step" from Cloudflare or wherever. But apparently they don’t keep up with every TOR address, so here is ME again!
Try enjoying dissent! I do because sharpens my dull-as-a-dibble wit.
Also: You should after 20 years have boiler-plate as I do, firm positions about what bellieve. It’d be handy. But after anti-dirt and me have chased you around for years, we STILL don’t know what your position is!
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
2nd by the way: an unprecedented “Secure Connection Failed”, but Back and click again, got through. Trying to build the walls round your little walled garden higher, or what?
Re: Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
Maybe you should get rid of the malware infested Windows 98 SE computer you use to post this stuff on then?
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
You’re literally whining about someone’s perceived lack of position while constantly railing against that position on every single post on a website full of thousands of posts explaining that position.
Re: You HAVE NOT
Start every post with “I’ll be censored” and “I just posted this five times to make you understand” and then cry when you get downvoted to oblivion? Such a victim. maybe is you use more caps people will understand your message?
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
Drugs are a bitch.
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
it could be a birth defect
Re: Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
Why not both? It’s out_of_the_blue. My money’s on both.
Re: Re:
Then why does the button say "Buy" and not "Rent"?
As far as I’m concerned, when the terms of sale indicate that I am "purchasing" a digital copy, then that is exactly what I am doing. I will take "my copy" and do with it as I please, which includes removing any DRM and making backup copies.
This is exactly what I do periodically with my Kindle and the wife’s Kindle. I save un-DRMed copies of everything to my laptop with Calibre.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ll bet that the terms of sale—that 50-page document everyone reads, right?—say that you have no rights, and you’re just giving money to Apple out of the goodness of your heart.
Re: Re: Re:
I tried to get that to work, but it wasn’t happening for me. I think Amazon broke it in more recent kindle versions.
Hence why I don’t buy Kindle books. I don’t want to lose my purchases to copywrong BS.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Find where the Kindle app is installed and rename “render-test.exe” to “render-test.xxx”. Then it will work.
Re: Re: Re:
Why can a store say a product is $20, then charge me more when I try to buy it? Because it’s a lie—false advertising that nobody in power is willing to call them on.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the store really is charging you $20. But the government is also charging you tax on the price of the sale. In many places in the US, if the store attempted to list prices with the tax included, they’d get in legal trouble for not collecting taxes on the listed price.
So for that $20 item, if the combined (city, state, national) tax is 10%, you’d owe $2 tax on the purchase — and it’s owed by you, not the store, even though they collect it on the government’s behalf — for a total of $22. But if they advertised a $22 price with the intent of making it ‘tax included’, the government might well charge tax based on the listed price, which means the actual tax owed is $2.20, making the amount you owe $24.20!
Even in places where that isn’t the case, companies have had psychological studies done, that have found that if someone is given a choice between “$20 plus 10% tax” and “$22” they will unconsciously view the store with the $20 price as cheaper/lower/better and shop there instead. So the store that is upfront and honest about the final price will get less business. The only way around this would be a national law requiring that all advertised prices be listed with the tax included, which could easily cause trouble with those places where the advertised price is the price the tax is calculated from.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That sounds like complete bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In Europe the law is they have to show the tax-included price. But that’s to hide the incredibly high tax rate from the consumer.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, it’s to understand that people understand up front what they’re actually. Plus we get more for our taxes, often in the form of things Americans have to pay extra for anyway, so they’re really not that high when you understand what they’re paying for. Whereas Americans would rather pay less taxes up front, then more charges to private companies to make up for what they’re missing.
Re: Re: Re:
Know what really annoys me about this? I’ve written to my MP to ask her to pass a law to make it illegal to advertise something as “for sale” when we don’t actually own what we bought. Response: crickets
We need to lean harder on our representatives. This is fraud!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s true — if you sold someone something and then ‘revoked’ the sale but kept the money, depending on how you did it, you’d be liable for charges of theft and/or fraud.
But not if you’re a corporation.
The moral of the story is to incorporate as a very small (1 or 2 people) corporation, so that you have rights. If you incorporate in a country that isn’t your own but has an ISDS treaty with your country, you might even be able to sue to be exempted from local laws entirely!
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
That’s cold man. And even worse actually. All these years telling bros stealing was wrong here you come selling it and then STEALING IT BACK!
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
I wonder — is sales/use tax or income tax (or VAT for those countries that have it) affected by whether something is a purchase or a license? I mean, one is a wholly owned asset and the other might not be.
If the tax rates are different, and iTunes is collecting the wrong tax, wouldn’t that cause trouble for them along the lines of tax evasion if the rate they aren’t collecting is higher?
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
What are you basing this view on?
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
Shocking newsflash, this person who bought the movie wasn’t trying to use it in a way that was restricted by the conditions of his purchase. Instead, iTunes refused to let him watch it AT ALL. PERIOD. He just wasted $60 on merchandise he can no longer use, even in an authorized manner.
Which is basically theft since the only equivalent I can think of would be if Walmart broke into your house and took back all the disks you purchased from them, just because they “lost the license to sell”. That’s not how any of this works.
Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
If it was a rental, the price shouldn’t be the same as a purchase. If it was a purchase, then Apple owes a refund since they charged for a purchase, not a rental.
And what if the customer(s) just licensed their money to Apple?
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
If the purchase was recent enough that your credit card allows chargebacks, this sort of thing would seem to be the ideal time for one.
having trouble feeling sympathy
Maybe this is just one more of my character flaws, but I don’t feel sorry for Apple’s victims. Apple didn’t just start this type of behavior a few months or years ago; this is just how they’ve always been. If you don’t know that Apple is a cinder block of a walled garden with razor wire on top by now, then you just haven’t been paying attention. I’m not saying that Apple is not wrong, and I won’t shed a tear if a class action suit comes their way. The customer base has to either accept this as part of the Apple deal or stop rewarding them with business.
Re: having trouble blaming Apple
Why do you think Apple is to blame rather than horrible copyright laws? They are hardly the first or the last company to do this. The point here being that copyright makes you a serf – not Apple.
Re: Re:
Apple should get partial blame for not calling for changes to copyright laws so situations like this stop happening. It has the power, societal influence, and (most importantly) money to back that position up.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? Why would Apple need to have the law changed? They negiotiated the terms with the copyright holders, and evidently did a bad job. They could have negotiated an irrevocable right to give an unlimited number of DRM-free copy to the purchaser and heirs. Instead, they chose to implement DRM and to let the copyright holder “take back” “purchased” items; they further chose to advertise this to customers as a “sale”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
They did get the record labels to eventually accept non-DRM purchases, maybe they can do the same for the movie industry. Until then, it’s wrong to attack them for taking the “OK we’ll take the DRM for now” when offered an all-or-nothing approach by the movie studios, which is what’s on the table now.
Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
Apple is (partly) to blame because their messaging strongly suggests that the customer is buying a license in perpetuity, that the content will remain available for approved use for as long as Apple has the technical means to provide it, and that the list of approved uses will not shrink later. In general, none of those suggestions are actually guaranteed in law or contract. We’ve seen numerous services decide to stop offering access to old licensed content (and not provide a pro-rated refund, a last chance use-it-or-lose-it unencumbered download, or other means for the customer to retain use of the work) because it was inconvenient or ceased to align with their business plan, not because it was technically infeasible. We’ve seen services reduce the list of approved uses after the payment was finalized. We’ve seen services suffer extended outages where a licensed work was unavailable, but a physical work would have continued operating normally.
Copyright law may be the vehicle through which the service (in this case, Apple) is compelled to take these anti-customer actions. However, it does not compel them to encourage their customers to believe their purchase is as good as buying a physical instance of the work (record, CD, DVD, etc.). That marketing misrepresentation (even if “corrected” by fine print) is entirely the decision of the service provider. That is why Apple deserves some blame: for failing to make users readily aware of how limited their rights truly are.
Re: Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
All of this is why I still buy physical media for things I care about.
Re: Re: Re:2 having trouble blaming Apple
This is similar to the right to repair issue for farmers. $20K to “buy” a tractor, but you are prohibited from making repairs or make any kind of software hacks.
Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
But Apple implemented a system that allows purchases to become unavailable when the work is no longer for sale. That is on Apple.
There are other digital distributors that do not operate under those same terms.
To pick one example: Rifftrax no longer sells the two 1960s Doctor Who movies that used to be available on the site; it lost the rights to them. However, if you purchased them when they were available, then you can still stream or download them.
To pick another example: The Square Enix game Last Remnant was recently removed from Steam; it’s no longer for sale. But if you bought it when it was for sale, you can still download and play it. If you bought a Steam code from a third-party seller, you can still redeem that code.
Rifftrax is located in the US. Valve is located in the US. Both companies are subject to exactly the same copyright laws that Apple is. And yet, they don’t take away their customers’ purchases when those items are removed from their stores.
There’s plenty to criticize about US copyright law.
But this? This is Apple’s fault. Not solely Apple’s fault, but Apple’s certainly not blameless.
Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
<i>”Why do you think Apple is to blame rather than horrible copyright laws?”</i>
Because Apple has always acted this way?
Copyright is a toxic mess, but it should be news to absolutely NO ONE that Apple, given its rich history of gouging their customers for all they think they can get away with, will keep right on doing so.
I mean, seriously, we’re talking about the company which stubbornly kept gorilla glass from its high-priced phones for years just to keep the revenue flowing from high-priced repairs to the spiderwebbed screen. Whose first response to high-quality tablet and phone competition was the lawsuit. And who pushed, to the supreme court, the matter of whether someone purchasing an Apple phone actually owned that phone or not.
Re: Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
“<i>”Why do you think Apple is to blame rather than horrible copyright laws?”</i>
Because Apple has always acted this way?”
Sorry, but your distaste of Apple’s conduct in other areas does not mean that they are responsible for the mess of copyright law, or the insistence of crap like DRM imposed upon them by the people who own the content. They may be responsible for the specifics of how they use it, but no matter how much you wish they are to blame, they still have to abide by the crap that the people who licence them the content insist upon.
Step one to getting this all fixed is to blame the people actually responsible, rather than whining about whichever company you dislike the most. The real fix for this kind of stuff is to get rid of DRM, which Apple managed to get done on music purchases. You won’t get that done by shoehorning things that, while they may be true, are utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Re: Re: Re:2 having trouble blaming Apple
It means, at minimum, that they’re complicit.
And again, as bad as copyright law and DRM are, they’re not incompatible with letting users continue to download things they’ve already bought. I already mentioned Steam upthread. If you buy a game, and then it gets delisted, you can still download it. Even with DRM.
DRM is a problem, certainly, and it prevents you from downloading something and being able to play it forever. But while it’s a related issue to items being removed from your library after purchase, they’re not exactly the same thing.
It’s possible for a DRMed product to still be downloadable after it’s delisted. And it’s possible for a DRM-free product to be removed from your library after it’s delisted (hope you downloaded it when you had the chance).
Right.
And if you’re claiming Apple has no responsibility for this, then you’re failing to do that.
Then you’re saying Apple does have the power to pressure companies into removing DRM.
Doesn’t that mean that not doing so means they’re partially responsible for the continued use of DRM in their store?
That much is true. Ranting about Gorilla Glass is completely irrelevant to a conversation about videos being removed from users’ libraries.
Re: Re: Re:3 having trouble blaming Apple
“It means, at minimum, that they’re complicit”
Perhaps. But by that measure, so is everybody who licences video content. Why single out Apple and not every other vendor who has to follow the same licencing terms? That’s where this gets dishonest – if Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, etc. all do the same thing, then singling out Apple for attack is just dumb. Especially since the list of people doing this includes subsidiaries of the studios who own the content – why not attack Sony for the terms placed on Sony movies in the PS store rather than attacking Apple for not negotiating what you wanted them to negotiate with people over whom they have no direct leverage?
“If you buy a game, and then it gets delisted, you can still download it”:
Until it’s removed from their servers, which the rights owners could presumably demand. If Valve are told they can no longer hold content on their servers, then they cannot supply you with a copy, and it will be beyond their control unless a court finds that the takedown order was wrong.
You’re right that these are two different issues, but they’re related – at the end of the day, it’s copyright worshippers trying to control the product after you’ve bought it.
“And if you’re claiming Apple has no responsibility for this, then you’re failing to do that.”
They have the same level of responsibility as they do with people texting and driving while using an iPhone. Sure, you can argue that they can do more to try and change things, but you have to be a moron to believe that they have the primary responsibility.
“Then you’re saying Apple does have the power to pressure companies into removing DRM”
Yes, but they cannot do it immediately or alone. Also, it was really Amazon entering the industry but refusing to play ball with DRM that really got DRM removed. Apple eventually got the industry to allow them to retroactively remove DRM from existing purchases, but while DRM was locking people into iTunes they didn’t have much problem with it despite battling against it in the early stages.
That’s the other part of this – DRM fragments the marketplace and locks people into certain ecosystems. Sure, Apple may be able to use their muscle to get away from DRM, but they have no major financial incentive to do so – but holding them to blame for the situation is just silly. If someone benefits from a low tax rate,
“Doesn’t that mean that not doing so means they’re partially responsible for the continued use of DRM in their store?”
No. If the licence holders demand a condition to licence their content and accept no compromise on that condition, it’s not the fault of the licencee for not bargaining hard enough when that condition exists. Trying to blame them is only a distraction, and it’s utterly moronic.
Re: Re: Re:4 having trouble blaming Apple
You’re mistaken. I’ve already mentioned Rifftrax as a site where you don’t lose access to your videos when they’re delisted.
Because this article is about Apple removing a purchase from someone’s library.
If you have a story about another vendor doing the same, there is a "Submit a Story" link at the top of the page.
Amazon is mentioned in the second sentence of the article.
Because this article is about Apple removing a purchase from someone’s library.
If you have a story about Sony doing the same, there is a "Submit a Story" link at the top of the page.
I am not aware of this ever happening. Indeed, the only way I can think of that Valve could possibly continue to offer games that have been delisted to customers who have already bought them is that its agreements with publishers have an explicit provision giving it a right to do so.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to share.
Bull.
Fucking.
Shit.
You are comparing the actions of someone who has purchased an Apple product to the actions of Apple itself. Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
I don’t recall saying that.
You’re right. Apple doesn’t have much of a problem with DRM.
Of course it is. They accepted the deal. They had the option not to accept it.
The notion that a party to a contract bears no responsibility for the terms of a contract is…how best to describe it…
…right, "utterly moronic".
But not as moronic as your texting-and-driving analogy.
Honest to God, dude, are you an Apple fanboy? I can’t think of any other reason why anyone would insist Apple is completely blameless here except blind partisanship.
Re: Re: Re:5 having trouble blaming Apple
“You’re mistaken. I’ve already mentioned Rifftrax as a site where you don’t lose access to your videos when they’re delisted.”
Do they licence content directly, or do they depend on fair use provisions to produce the content they sell?
“Because this article is about Apple removing a purchase from someone’s library.”
OK. But, the larger issues apply to everybody.
“Amazon is mentioned in the second sentence of the article.”
Cool. But, the people I’m responding to are not attacking them, only Apple.
“I am not aware of this ever happening.”
So… it will never happen?
“You are comparing the actions of someone who has purchased an Apple product to the actions of Apple itself. “
Not necessarily, it depends on the licencing terms. Apple may not have had a legal choice. They’re not necessarily blameless, but it’s clear that there are factors well beyond their control.
“You’re right. Apple doesn’t have much of a problem with DRM.”
…but they have a history of removing it once licensors stop demanding it.
“I can’t think of any other reason why anyone would insist Apple is completely blameless here”
I can’t think of anywhere that I claimed that.
Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
Because if anyone but a corporation did this, they’d get a visit from the police, a trial in front of a judge and a prison cell?
Suppose I sell you a car. I call it a purchase, I report it as such for tax purposes. I transfer the title to you. But buried deep in the title transfer paperwork is a clause that says you are only renting the car and I can take it back whenever I feel like for no reason at all.
Months pass. I have paid taxes to the government based on having your money but not having the car anymore. You have paid taxes based on not having that money anymore but now owning a car. You bought car insurance. You’ve paid to have upkeep and modifications done to the car.
And then one day you get up, get ready for work, go out to the driveway and your car is missing. In its place is a note from me, saying “So sorry, the manufacturer has stopped selling their cars through me, so I’ve had to return all my unsold stock to them, and my contract with them also requires me to take back any cars I’ve sold to anyone. I’ll be keeping your money though, no refunds.”
You’d call the police and have me arrested! But because a corporation did it, nobody in authority cares.
Re: having trouble feeling sympathy
Up until now, digital purchases I have made have remained available to me, even when licensing prevented future sale. For instance, Song Summoner: The Unsung Heros remained available for download long after it was purchasable or even playable (IOS 7 or 8 broke it completely, and it can’t load on iOS 11 because its 32 bit). Microsoft and Sony have maintained my ability to download and play Activation purchases long after the Licenses to sell those games expired. (Marvel: Ulitimate Aliiance DLC for X360, Transformers: Devestation and Rise Of The Dark Spark for PS4). We have no reason to assume that despite the Walled garden nature of Apple’s digital storefronts they would remove purchases from our libraries.
Re: having trouble feeling sympathy
No not a character flaw. Apples victims walked into that walled garden with their eyes wide open, but with the mental attitude that it won’t happen to them, even though there were already plenty of examples of why it probably would.
Example of why people "pirate"
I went onto a large, popular e-book website last month and looked up a book I wanted to purchase (still popular, still in print). I got an “out of stock” response for a freaking E-BOOK!
Its bad enough that you want to charge me as much OR MORE money than for a print copy, but then you tell me you are fresh out of 1s and 0s for that particular item?
And THAT is what contributes to a “pirate” culture.
Re: Example of why people "pirate"
“I got an “out of stock” response for a freaking E-BOOK!”
I believe the most damaging thing about copyright (and imho there are quite a few negatives I could expound on) may just be the way it encourages the copyright holder to act in bad faith.
The sooner copyright dies, the better. There’s nothing left which can be salvaged of it by this point.
Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
How about if I go into a brick-and-mortar STORE and BUY a DVD and take it home to watch – would you think it OK for the producer of that DVD to just come into my house and take it back?
If not, then why can they “take back” a digital copy?
Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
That was basically the plan of the original thing known as DIVX. Nobody wanted it then, but they bought into Bluray which allows the same thing (players can receive updates that stop them from playing discs you already bought; if you don’t take the updates you’ll be unable to play new ones).
Re: Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
Well…kind of.
Re: Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
I rip all my Blu Rays for just that reason. Not to mention, having an mkv on the harddrive is easier to deal with and won’t go bad.
Re: Re: Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
Fine if you know how to do that, but most people don’t. And if you’re buying movies to rip, you’re basically giving your approval to a system that oppresses others and is trying to oppress you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
Handbrake isn’t that hard to use, and the support is good. I had an issue, that in the end had nothing to do with them and was resolved on a Linux update, but they responded and checked all the logs I sent in.
Re: Re: Since you insist on calling it "Theft"
That’s NOT the same thing. DIVX was a way to have Movie Rentals. Streaming Movies back then wasn’t a thing. The Internet was way to slow.
You would buy a Disc Rental of a movie. So you didn’t pay full price for the movie. You popped the disc into the special player, which was connected to your phone line, and it called out, check to make sure you haven’t watched the disc yet and then allows you to watch that movie within 24 hours. Then the disc was no good. You could PAY to watch it again or throw away the disc. Of course, you had a lot of people complaining about throwing away all these discs. It was kind of pointless when you could just go to Blockbuster and pick up a movie. But of course, you had to return those discs.
I get if Apple loses a license to sell a movie. BUT,m if the movie is already sold, YOU paid for it. Apple shouldn’t be allowed to take it away from you just because it’s a digital copy!!! They shouldn’t be able to sell it after losing the license, but anyone that had already PAID for the content shouldn’t lose it. They paid for it and it’s there’s.
It’s this crap that with DRM. You do things legally and you get screwed over. This is exactly why I just don’t buy Digital Movies from anyone!!! I buy my movies on Disc and then RIP them myself and put them on my NAS and watch that content anywhere I want using PLEX. It’s my own personal Netflix basically!! But it’s all Content I like and it doesn’t come and go. I have hundreds of discs. As I rip them, I throw the cases away and put the discs into Disc Binders as a Backup.
I don’t get how you can BUY a Digital movie and then at a whim, they can STEAL it right back from you. If they’re going to do that, I expect a full refund. If you’re going to steal the movie I paid for, I expect my money back. It’s that simple. The button says BUY, not (Temporary Buy).
usenet
and this is why if i want a movie ill rent ot from redbox and rip it or just usenet it
Wonton piracy is looking pretty good now, eh?
So once again the pirated product proves to be better than the legal commercial alternative.
Yar-har! Fiddle-dee-dee!
Re: Wonton piracy is looking pretty good now, eh?
Wonton piracy is only practical if you can get the goods fresh. Nobody wants stale wontons.
Re: Re: wild wontons
The first piracy that wasn’t robbery on the high seas was oyster piracy, harvesting from oyster-rich beaches by night without a license.
From this we can infer that pirated wontons aren’t made, rather, they grow in the wild.
Re:
…AND THAT COMES STRAIGHT FROM WON TON HIMSELF!
Gee
I purchased quite a few ebooks from Baen. And at this time, several of those books I purchased are labeled “Ebook No Longer For Sale”, yet I can still download those specific book simply because I purchased them while they were available for sale.
So why can’t Apple do the same?
Re: Gee
That is how it should be. Apple may lose the License to SELL the movie. That shouldn’t mean anyone they SOLD that movie too, that they can then take it back. It’s SOLD and so they should be allowed to continue to use what they paid for.
If not, you should be given a FULL Refund. Even then, it’s not the best option. People buy moves when they’re on SALE. So you get your money back on a sale price, and now have to buy it someplace else and may end up paying more money for it to get it once again.
This is why I won’t buy Digital movies from anyone. I buy Discs and Rip them myself, put it on my NAS and can watch in on in TV in my house or anywhere in the world with an Intenet connection using PLEX and if that’s not an option, I can copy the movie from PLEX into a smaller size and format for my iPad quite easily and watch with no internet connection.
The flexibility I get buying my movies and ripping them myself and having no DRM.
Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft
After you purchase something, it is yours. You decide what to do with it, not Apple. If they want it back, they can make you offers and hope you’ll accept. Helping themselves to your property is a criminal offense, no different from a vendor stealing back a washing machine they sold you.
Imagine the roles were reversed and you were to help yourselves to money you paid Apple for a product – without Apples consent and without returning the product. You’d find yourself in jail in no time. Why should it be different if Apple is the stealing party?
Re: Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft
Because like most people, you didn’t read and fully understand the terms and conditions of using Apple’s products.
Re: Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft
Because laws are for little people. Apple is doubly immune as they are a corporation.
Re: Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft
Because the license agreement that you have to agree to in order to make the "purchase", and which nobody ever reads basically says "We can do whatever we want and you have absolutely no rights." Same as virtually every other contract today.
Re: Ask the police to investigate Apple for theft
“Why should it be different if Apple is the stealing party?”
Welcome to copyright. Where copying is theft and actual dictionary-definition theft and fraud is the legitimate way.
And this is why I buy all my movies in physical format, rip them, and throw the rips up on my Plex server and the physical copies in storage.
While a little extra work for me, I get all the benefits of a digital copy with none of the copyright nonsense.
Re: Re:
I had a similar plan back when I regularly bought movies. Now I just don’t bother watching any movies unless they are on Netflix.
As I got older watching movies and owning them became less important. Sometimes I won’t find a movie I really want to see, but then I decide nah, too much effort to get a pirated version and I’ll go do something else. For me movies are overrated anyway.
Re: Re: Re:
“For me movies are overrated anyway”
Especially since they just keep rehashing the same BS thinking the special effects make it new.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is where I always feel the need to tell people to stop just watching whatever blockbuster is being pushed this week and get out there and explore. Great cinema is still being produced, and often available on the platforms you already use. You just have to start being discerning about what you watch rather than just blindly accepting what’s being marketed to you.
Method of Purchase
Publicity via assorted networks
Start filing reversal claims through whatever credit card/ payment service you used.
If the financial service does the to-be- expected too old thing (referring to the purchase date), push the violation of purchase as the date.
Small claims court.
Eventually, someone will get the message.
This is why I laugh at people who give me shit for still buying CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray. Never once have I “lost access” to any one of those because of licensing BS.
Re: Lost
Actually I have lost far more access from damaged media that anything being yanked from an online store.
Your “Physical copy is your license to use the copyrighted material” breaks down if you scratch a disk.
Re: Re: Lost
Yeah, I’ve noticed lots of my old CDs have pin holes when held up to the light. Fortunately I backed them up.
Re: Re: Re: Lost
If “lots” of your CDs have pin holes, I would suggest you stop mistreating them. They aren’t going to magically develop pin holes, just like DVDs don’t magically develop scratches. You people are ridiculous.
Re: Re: Re:2 Lost
DVDs will develop pinholes over time, due to atmospheric moisture, and volatiles in the resins used to make them, even if sored in cool dry conditions.
Re: Re: Re:3 Lost
Oh, complete and utter BS. There was an issue with the ink used when CDs first came out, but that’s it. Your pseudo-scientific word salad is nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:4 Lost
Actually, you’re full of shit. Pressing defects can introduce oxidation, which cause discs to be unreadable after some length of time even if properly stored. Out of my collection of 1000+ DVDs, I’ve seen this happen on around 20-30 of them. Not a massive percentage, but you’re lying if you say this has to be the fault of the consumer.
Please get your facts straight before you start attacking people.
Re: Re: Re:3 Lost
Also, DVD don’t have in issue with “pin holes” that CDs have. CD use the underside of the printed side at the reflexive surface for the laser, which is why pin holes are so detrimental. DVD do NOT work this why. Even uninked discs (which I have several) work just fine. So, even if you did get “pin holes” in a DVD’s printed side, it’s irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:4 Lost
This is literally false. CDs and DVDs work exactly the same way and have a similar physical structure (at least basic DVDs, multi-layer/double sided are more complex).
CDs DO NOT use the printed label for reflectivity. They have a metal reflective layer just like DVDs do. Now, it is true that some older writable CDs don’t have a lacquer layer in between the metal layer and the label, but the label was NEVER the reflective layer. It was always an additional layer on top. To my knowledge, all pre-written CDs had the additional lacquer layer for protection, and all newer writable CDs have a layer now.
DVD and CD manufacturing has gotten much better over the years and they do last much longer now. However, CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays are all susceptible to degradation and pin-holing over time. Improper care can greatly expedite the rate at which this can happen.
Re: Re: Re:5 Lost
I think Rich needs to look into the topic of archival quality and where CD & DVD type media stands in the list of possibilities and what makes it so.
Re: Re: Lost
Depends on whether you’ve ripped a backup.
Course, ripping a DVD or a Blu-Ray violates the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause.
Re: Re: Re: Lost
Except it is perfectly legal to make backups of anything you buy. Actually, I think a court case even made it clear that companies are not allowed to prevent you from making a backup.
So yes, ripping is technically breaking one law, but it itself is breaking the law that allows you to back stuff up. And this is why anti-circumvention and copyright laws are dumb.
Re: Re: Re:2 Lost
Yes, the supreme court has established that time and format shifting are perfectly legal. The fact I have to violate the DMCA to do it, I’m fine with.
Re: Re: Re:2 Lost
If you are computer literate, you probably already have, however, the issue is that YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE TO DO THIS!
Re: Re: Re:3 Lost
I’m confused. What is it I shouldn’t have to do? Make backups of my media or break a stupid law because it is the only way to legally make said backups?
Re: Re: Re:4 Lost
“What is it I shouldn’t have to do? Make backups of my media or break a stupid law because it is the only way to legally make said backups?”
Neither.
You shouldn’t have to go the long way towards rendering your purchased media permanent nor should you have to violate a law in order to do so.
Re: Re: Re:5 Lost
I understand that. What I don’t understand is what Felicia-San is railing on about.
Re: Re: Lost
Yeah, I keep having people say that nonsense to me, too. Besides the fact I have ALL my discs backed up. I’ve NEVER had one go bad (and I have about 10,000 discs). You people must be really mishandling yours.
Re: Re: Re: Lost
I’ve certainly had CDs and DVDs go bad.
Most of them were small scale recordings from local bands (probably CD-Rs with ink jet printing), but I’ve had commercially pressed ones that have had the aluminum layer delaminate (?!) or apparently corrode.
I’ve heard people claim “that can’t happen”, but am I going to believe them or my eyes?
Re: Re: Re:2 Lost
Some people are just BAD with discs. All my CDs/DVDs/BDs look brand new… except a few I’ve loaned to friends/family. Some of those come back looking like they took a BELT SANDER to the disc! How the hell does someone do that to a disc in a few hours??
Re: Re: Re:3 Lost
By taking a belt sander to them?
Re: Re: Re:3 Lost
The same way a mate of mine cut a floppy disc into two concentric discs, biscuit (cookies to you American) crumbs. Popcorn can do the job as well..
Re: Re: Lost
Also, I never said, “Physical copy is your license to use the copyrighted material.”
Re: Re: Lost
If you guys think losing an item because you damaged it, is even remotely equivalent to it being taken away from you because of licensing issues, when you’re completely bonkers.
Re: Re: Lost
I have Hundreds of Discs and have not broken or scratched a single one of them. Besides, I’ve ripped most of them and they are on my NAS. The Discs then go into a large Disc Binder as another backup. Takes up much, less space that way than having them in their original cases. The Binders can be stored away.
My Movies are on my NAS. They are backed up to another cheaper NAS automatically in a different location. Using PLEX, it’s like my own personal Netflix service. But it’s all content I like. It doesn’t come and go. I can dump anything on PLEX right to my iPad easily for times I know I want to watch something and I don’t have Internet access. Like if I go to my Mom’s house to spend the weekend. She lives in the mountains. No high-speed Internet. ANywhere else in the world with Internet service I can stream anything and everything I have.
Kind of hard to damage or scratch a disc when you’re not using the disc. That it’s protected safe, out of the way, in a zipped up case in a nice disc sleeve. That may never again be touched by me. All my content, DRM free so I can use it as I see fit.
Re: Re: Re: Lost
…and yet manufacturing flaws may still cause oxidisation and disc rot even if you never touch the disc.
“All my content, DRM free so I can use it as I see fit.”
Which you had to break the law in order to achieve.
Re: Re:
I’ve lost access because of media deterioration, and in the early days of Blu Ray, some titles would stop working on particular devices due to firmware upgrades, etc.
I would suggest using a movies anywhere account linked to iTunes as a backup for Apple purchases
Re: Re:
That would still be subject to the same issue, just a different vendor.
The way that the system for purchasing these is set up in general currently, there is no way for companies to “stop doing this”. Currently the vast majority of these systems require the companies spend resources to keep them available to you. Companies don’t last forever, so inevitably eventually they won’t be maintaining anymore and you will lose what you bought. Not a huge issue for apple and amazon but a pretty big barrier to entry for any new competition I think
LeasedNotOwned
Learned a long time ago that anything digital is considered a lease and thereby revocable.
You never bought the product, you only bought the right to use it based on whatever the company says…
Perhaps the EU Commission could look into digital ownership and give us a ruling on first sale doctrine while they’re at it. Would be interesting mental gymnastics to see their ruling vs copyright and linking…
Re: LeasedNotOwned
Only if your digital is DRM crap.
I’m sure these terms are clearly spelled out in the EULA on page 400 well after the don’t use our product to make war.
While plastic discs aren’t trendy anymore, at least studios are sending ICE in to raid people’s homes to remove discs the publisher’s contract ended for.
They keep playing with the meanings of words and the only loser is the paying customers. Magically they can’t seem to understand why people paying them the full price don’t enjoy finding out later there is a contract that didn’t involve them & no one told them the terms of when they paid that allows the content to vanish & maybe we’ll let you have a rental if you complain enough.
They scream how we have no respect for copyright…
Empty public domain…
Limitations on the use of products we ‘purchase’…
Vanishing content b/c they could get a better deal with diff distributor & you can just buy it again…
Once upon a time didn’t Amazon end up with a hassle when they pulled a holiday movie from peoples libraries b/c the owner wanted to drive sales & so it was removed from prime free viewing & from people who thought they owned a copy?
Why does ANYONE buy Apple crap anymore?
Iphones – a 2007 interface with poor unstable battery management that’s about as waterproof as a teaspoon of sugar.
2018 Macbook…2012’s technology, TODAY! so poor they can’t run Windows 10 due to pisspoor tech decisions.
FLimsy keyboards that drop apart when used. Phones that split apart at the seams within days. Batteries that just spontaneously “fail” after a few months.
Apple LONG LONG ago lost any “cool factor”. they’re basically now just an android-wannabe, following Android phone shapes and designs but putting their god-awful security-nightmare of an OS on it.
Re: Re:
They can install and run windows 10….im not sure what pisspoor tech decisions you refer to there.
And I find when you start pricing full aluminum body computers with similar specs the costs are more expensive for apple, but I haven’t found a full metal body laptop that compares in size or bulk elsewhere.
which keyboards? The laptop keyboard that went a decade without replacement, or the wireless keyboard that has handled 5 years of daily use?
Which over hyped ‘scandal’ are you referring to about iPhones falling apart?
By which metric? I think I have seen fewer iOS specific malware notices in the last 12 months, and fewer iOS app exploits in the last 12 months. That admittedly might be perception though.
Honestly, you could make much better iPhone arguments directly discussing cost vs top end competitors.
But your question, in relation to iPhone is answered by addressing your core bias – you don’t like apple or the interface. I for one do. Every time I work with Android the interfaces operate differently, the buttons act differently depending on the app and the screen on the app. The way important options are sorted makes no sense…
I program C++ and used DOS and Unix command lines. I edit the windows registry and manage my work’s domain. Android still confuses me.
So I go to third party for repairs. I update slowly. The value in a phone/music player/PDA/timewaster that I understand and can rely on is high.
For computers the math is different. But if the last year with my craptop (a dirtcheap HP laptop with windows 10) has taught me anything, its that windows is far worse than MacOS, given that I literally can’t update Win10 on the 32GB Flash Memory chip that it uses as a HD (Windows doesn’t leave me 10GB, cant run this update off my clean 32gb thumb drive, and I cant just ask HP for a bigger hard drive..), but windows will lock me down for 15 minutes trying to force me to update every time I open it up. And Linux while open, also doesn’t have the support I need, and I don’t want the experience of piercing together everything I need and doing everything myself. Apple is actually a happy medium that works, and works well. Thats all.
Re: Re: Re:
“They can install and run windows 10….im not sure what pisspoor tech decisions you refer to there.”
More to the point, why would you buy a Macbook if all you wanted to do was run Windows? Even if true, I never get this line of reasoning, since unless you believe that Macbooks are superior hardware then you wouldn’t be buying one anyway if you didn’t want to primarily run OSX. It’s nonsense, even if he wasn’t lying about that ability.
He’s obvious an anti-Apple fanboy, his type don’t need verifiable facts to go on a rant against the company.
I presume that with the keyboard comment he’s talking about the recent issue with newer Macbook where some people were experiencing problems – which Apple admitted to, fixed and I believe offered to repair under warranty for those affected without question. The others are probably just some similar half-assed half-truth he picked up somewhere and repeats whenever some Apple user seems to have a better deal than he does. I certainly don’t know what he’s trying to get at with the security comment.
A lot of these things tend to get falsely amplified anyway, due to the way Apple produce both hardware and software. If Samsung make a bad phone, or Acer make a bad laptop, it won’t affect everyone who buys a new Android or Windows machine, whereas a problem with Apple will potentially affect everyone running the latest device. A 1% failure rate might not be noticed with other manufacturers but might seem massive when Apple has an issue for this reason.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wouldn’t make sense if all you wanted was to run Windows, but there are reasons to dual-boot. Games, say, or any other programs you need that aren’t available for Mac (and don’t run well in a VM).
Or if you’re a software developer and need to test in multiple environments (and, again, a VM isn’t suitable for whatever reason).
Re: Re:
Is not being able to run Windows was a bad thing?
Re: Re: Re:
Only if you’re irrevocably tied to certain Windows applications – which raises the question of why you’re buying a Macbook instead of the cheaper Windows laptop – because you know they are of superior build quality, perhaps?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Build quality seems rather irrelevant when it’s associated with the type of shenanigans that Apple are prone to.
I suppose I could buy a Macbook and install Ubuntu or Linux Mint on it. I’m not sure however, that the Build Quality gives me sufficient “bang for my buck” to make it worthwhile. I’m already getting more “mileage” out of generic laptops than people I know with Macbooks.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, why else would you pay money for a Macbook and then put a different OS on it?
It’s a serious question. If the AC above thinks that a major problem with Macbooks is that you can’t install Windows 10 on them (false, but that’s his argument), then the immediate question is why someone would be trying to do that in the first place. Dual booting perhaps, but that’s always going to be a decision by someone already invested enough in Apple to make the purchase first.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually that is a reasonable question.
The AC is quite wrong though, as you can install Win 10 and Linux (Ubuntu anyway) with Boot Camp, and Dual boot, all with Apples blessing.
People still use iTunes btw? the software that opens a screaming portal to hell where anyone can just take over your PC and do what they want?
Software that during “updates” scans your documents folder for juicy info and sends it back to Cupertino? (including bank info and stored browser usernames/passwords).
And thats just the PC version. I can imagine the freehand they have with OSX they do far far worse.
Why anyone would use iTunes is beyond me.
When Windows XP first required activation...
It was a concern that Microsoft might cease to exist, or worse might arbitrarily discontinue support of software activation. To this day, it remains a valid concern.
Just because the end-users tolerate a corporate practice doesn’t mean they like it. Online content delivery services depend on trust, and enough incidents like these will lower price points for end-users who want featured content.
Re: When Windows XP first required activation...
Jesus Mother of Bethlehem, you people and your defense of the free-swindler-market never cease to amaze me.
Re: Re: free-swindler-market
Oh do elaborate Sayonara Felicia-San, what specifically are you accusing me of defending?
Re: When Windows XP first required activation...
Can you still activate a copy of Windows XP?
Windows XP – Black Edition.
It's the First Rule
Once you have their money, you never give it back.
It's called Corporate Asset Forfeiture.
Your Libertarian Paradise is a Hellhole.
This is exactly the same as police officers confiscating cars and cash for no reason. They, in this case the greedy parasitic corporate leaches, will continue to do this as long as no law stops them from doing it.
People are too short sighted and stupid to act in their own best interests.
Government needs to step in and make a damn law forbidding this type of despicable theft. NO, a 20 page fine print legalize disclaimer is not appropriate, nor should it be legal for citizens to give away their rights prior to making a purchase.
If you buy a creative work, you should hold the right to own and play that creative work, on not only the device you purchased it on, but every and any future device.
I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
I have a pretty good idea of which company decided to yank Canadian distribution rights and I’m personally working on rippin’ em out good. There’s one company here in the Great White North that’s been eating up movie/TV rights like crazy and just squatting on them. It was probably Bell.
I mean, shame on Apple for revoking viewership rights when they lost distro rights (which really have no reason to be intertwined) but I think the real villain here is the company that reneged the films from Apple.
Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
I’m sure some legal maggot will point out somewhere in the itunes terms of service a passage where it makes it legal to do this, and this is exactly the problem here.
This is due to a lack of regulation protecting consumers.
Re: Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
Uh, you just pointed it out. So does that make you the maggot?
Maybe tone down the insults a bit? It’s really not helping your case.
Re: Re: Re: I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
You’re right! Maggots are just the larval form of flies.
I meant to say legal parasites.
Re: Re: Re:2 I Want to Know Which Movies Were Removed
My question still stands. Since you pointed it out, does that make you the legal parasite?
(P.S. Your insult really doesn’t make any sense.)
I wouldn’t use iTunes in the first place, but if I did…
“Dear Apple,
Thank you for your response. What I’m hearing from you is that I should go pirate copies of the movies I was foolish enough to believe that I “owned” when I “purchased” them from your site. Duly noted. Please cancel my account as I have no further need of your service.”
Speaking of Amazon...
They are still very in the burning books game. After all, what do you expect from a sociopath like Jeff Bezos? He has simply decided to take a slower approach to $hitting all over you stupid imbeciles and your rights.
They now just police books the ‘left’ says are misogynist.
SEP 11, 2018, 11:11 AM
Virulent misogynist gets his books removed by Amazon (ThinkProgress)
https://thinkprogress.org/amazon-removes-books-by-self-published-misogynist-and-rape-apologist-e896078a41ab/
Next we can expect Amazon to ‘partner’ with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in identifying books with “hate” speech.
This entire circus will of course include the usual “mistakes”
These will be a couple of books “accidentally” banned. People will become ‘outraged’ as usual. Amazon will ‘apologize’ and bring back the books which were accidentally banned, meanwhile the gullible rubes will forget all about the larger issue of a corporate sociopath deciding what books you can read.
This same tried and true method are being used right now to ban Alex Jones, and it’s been very effective.
Re: Speaking of Amazon...
Ok, the dude actively promotes rape. That is misogynist by anyone’s definition, left or right.
Secondly, Amazon didn’t ban the books, they just refused to continue selling them. You can still get them elsewhere and the people who bought them can still read them. Amazon just isn’t selling new copies.
This is completely different from the iTunes debacle where Apple didn’t just stop selling new copies, they forced everyone to give back the copies they had already bought and paid for.
Finally, if you are going to defend Alex Jones then you can shove off. The man is a disgusting con artist who preys on people’s fears and insecurities and promotes absolutely vile and blatantly false conspiracy theories. He violated all those sites’ terms of service, multiple times, was given multiple warning and chances to knock it off and he didn’t. I have no sympathy for him and to him I say goodbye and good riddance.
Don’t buy their shit.
Just Steal It Back
There are plenty of ways to download the movie you paid for.
Just do it.
I abhor the treason that is becoming common and what this government is letting the crooked corporations get away with in America.
Side effect of forced arbitration and class action standards
If there was any justice in the world they would be charged as much as RIAA thinks a single infringement is worth per ‘sale’.
But I think this clearly shows what happens when consumer rights are stripped away. They feel more confident in ripping them off further and changing the deal. Even Amazon with their infamous kindle 1984 incident refunded the people and they only did that when they had legal trouble.
Really with all of the trends going retrograde and stupid-evil with the EU they have nobody but themselves to blame if they find people going all 1990s again and Napstering everything before considering paying a cent for it. They have already proven that they are as trustworthy as the kind of early e-commerce that made Paypal a success because people didn’t want to give out their Credit Card number to any rando’s website before the banks were officially involved.
“Digital media lets me download and backup the content as much as I want, whereas with physical media they can (magically) break and scratch and-“
“Psych! We hope you didn’t notice us removing two or three movies from your digital library. Just like that.”
Don't Whinge About Piracy
I’ve got Freeview and that’s good enough for me for the most part. However, the same situation applies with the App features (apart from BBC iPlayer): they simply MUST have your contact details and credit card number or you can’t avail yourself of Catch-up or anything like that. Whenever I’ve complained about it, the response is either *crickets* or “LOLwut? We’re not after your data.” Don’t get me started on ITVhub, which promises an ad-free experience if you pay for it, apart from on the stuff I actually want to watch. So basically, despite the fact that they get my eyeballs on their ads and I’ve effectively paid for this via the licence fee (ITV gets some of this), I have to pirate the stuff I want to watch to avoid signing my life away to these people.
Even on BThub, where I can rent movies, I can only rent some movies. They want a tenner or more to “buy” a movie which will disappear if I change my set-top box, so, again, I end up pirating. I do rent stuff, but only the stuff I actually want that’s available to rent. If they put the older stuff to rent at a quid each I’d rent more stuff more often and wouldn’t pirate at all, but that’s the way they want it and they won’t listen to a mere customer, so stuff ’em. I pirate. Either make it easier to access and pay for what I want legally or I’ll fire up my VPN and find a streaming service to provide it for free. Pick one.
Content should still be made available to existing customers
I can see Apple’s point of view that they may not be legally allowed to sell something when the copyright holder tells them not to. But why in the world do they have to delete the media that people have already paid for? Just make the items inactive on the storefront but allow existing customers to keep downloading and watching.
However, maybe we should follow Apple’s lead and complain to the copyright holders. Which movies were deleted from everyone’s accounts and which studio should we boycott over this? At the very least, people should stop buying content from the studio because of this issue.
Right to be forgotten will soon allow file deletion
on your phone & computer.
Re: Mandated deletion
Well, there was that incident when the UK Prime Minister ordered some goons to destroy a hard drive owned by a news agency containing the Snowden leaked data.
That’s where backups held by other parties will come in handy.
you can own the itunes purchased movie forever
Read this article and you will find a perfect solution named TunesKit. https://gizmodo.com/yes-you-can-own-the-movies-you-buy-from-apple-kinda-1829031620
I’ve read stories like this for years and for a time it really made me reluctant to “buy” things on iTunes. I got over it. The convenience suckered me in. But everything I “buy” I also download so I have it stored locally on my computer. When Apple loses the license and the movie is no longer in your iTunes library, do they also reach into the iTunes folder on your computer and delete files?
Re: Re:
Not that I’m aware of, but if the file has DRM they can make it unplayable.
Well, when you buy a movie as a download, you need to convert it to a format where you have it forever, no matter what apple does.
There are programs out that re-record whatever your computer sees and hears.
And this does not violate the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA because it is being done for personal use, and not for any kind of financial gain.
Blqme the pirates, and the pro-piracy movement.
Creators are allowed to control their own work with INDIVIDUAL contracts. Anyone who doesn’t like these terms is free not to license the content, but they are NOT free to STEAL it.
Re: Re:
What movement is this and why do I see no evidence of this in society?
The fact of the matter is, people are more than willing to pay for content/works. See the Nintendo NES and SNES mini classics for proof. You can pirate all the games on those devices, and hundreds more, for free and less work than buying the official versions from Nintendo. Despite that, those devices flash sold and took Nintendo completely by surprise, causing them to completely run out of stock in a matter of weeks.
What people don’t care for is corporations overcharging for content and making it extremely difficult to get a hold of, and saddling it with so many restrictions that it may as well be unusable, not to mention also having the ability to steal it back from you if the intermediary seller ever loses the license to sell it in the future. Again, this is no different than Walmart breaking into your house and stealing all the movies you ever bought from their store.
And if creators were actually signing INDIVIDUAL contracts with each buyer, then you might have a point. But they aren’t. When someone buys a product, the reality is it is theirs to do with as they please, even going so far as to re-sell it in certain circumstances (hello garage sales, craigslist, ebay, etc…). Digital throws a wrench into it because you can’t re-sell it like you would a physical item, but that doesn’t change the fact that you bought a product, not a license to a product. Though industry is rapidly trying to change this. Until that happens though, you are buying a product, and if you only sell licenses to a product, then that needs to be CLEARLY spelled out before someone clicks the buy button (or better yet, rename it to a rent button). Otherwise you are engaging in fraud and the buyer has every right to be indignant with you.
However, none of this addresses actual piracy.
No one ever said they were free to steal, or encourages it. What they are saying is that piracy is a thing and no matter how much you "go after the pirates", you will never stamp it out. It’s a losing battle of whac-a-pirate. Instead, you should focus on listening to what your consumers want and making your content more easily available through legal channels, as well as not double dip price gouging them for it, and generally being a jerk.
Besides that, this entire article is not about consumers stealing something. It’s about the industry stealing legally purchased merchandise from consumers. You want to talk about piracy? Tell the industry to go look in a mirror.
Problem runs deeper
If for some reason, you NEED to close the email address that you used to purchase music or movies and Apps. You’re out of luck. Your purchases are only valid under the original name you were using when you purchased this item and there is no way to transfer it.
If this information had been revealed in the first place, I’d have purchased DVD’s and CD’s. I could have burned them to my computer no problem and if I lost my account or had to abandon it due to Stalking, Threats, Hacking, etc…. I would still have the PROPERTY that I paid good f’n money for, PERIOD!!
In other words, Apple is bending us over and forcing what they want on us. It’s not ethical and I don’t understand why there are not a group of iTunes users taking Apple to court. I’m willing to, anyone else with me? Email me: rosewirter@mac.com
Re: Problem runs deeper
Erm, you think Apple is unethical and hate them enough to want to sue them, but you use an email address supplied with them? You might need to start thinking about who you do business with.
"If for some reason, you NEED to close the email address that you used to purchase music or movies and Apps. You’re out of luck"
In that situation, no. You can make arrangements to change any account email address before you close the account. Your paranoia only applies if you lose control of the email address through hacking or other unexpected means, and even then most companies provide ways to prove your identity in order to change your account ID.
"Your purchases are only valid under the original name you were using when you purchased this item and there is no way to transfer it"
This is outright false. Stop lying,.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202667
"If this information had been revealed in the first place, I’d have purchased DVD’s and CD’s."
It was revealed up front, you just didn’t look into what you were signing up for properly.
Look, I despise DRM, but there’s no need to lie about its faults. Pick one of the many real ones.