Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by Groot

That isn’t how copyright or licensing works....at all. The only time that has come up is when contracts didn’t have home video licenses in general in the contracts and some had to be retooled. Nothing is gonna make them remove a track for a film on a purchased digital copy.

Dawson's Creek would disagree with you. When the show aired, WB only paid for over the air rights to Paula Cole's "I Don't Wanna Wait". When they prepped the DVD release they paid for home media rights to the song for the first 2 seasons of the DVD, but when they didn't sell well they decided not pay for the rights for subsequent releases and replaced it with a different song.

So now when it streams it does not have the original theme song. But owners of the DVD can still listen to it as it was intended.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1683506.html

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Occam, that's who.

is it possible that a bunch of multinational corporations changed their plans because of some posts on some message boards? Sure, I suppose that's possible.

But the much simpler explanation for the disconnect between prediction and reality is that the people running around with their hair on fire were just plain wrong.

So should people not express their concern at such rumours? Or should we all smoke our pipes and sing ‘Don’t worry be happy?’

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Groot, with all due respect, your attitude on this is everything that we are concerned about in the long run, and exactly what the studios and content providers want.

I personally don't give a flying crap about the Kardashians, either. But if that is a piece of content that was offered up for purchase digitally and someone bought it because it was of interest to them, then they should have ongoing access to it. Just as I should have access to any content that I buy, regardless of how popular it is and regardless of how some others feel about it. It's like the saying goes, "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

I'm sure there are at least some movies that you very much enjoy and want ongoing access to that aren't necessarily ones that lit the box office on fire or are particularly popular across the board. If some content is removed down the road, there's no guarantee that none of your personal favorites will be impacted, as opposed to something that you just never cared about in the first place, or weren't as big a fan of.

The problem with your "movies of merit" concept is by what measure is a movie given this prestigious "merit?" There are some that most people would universally agree upon, but then there's other content that would fall into more of a gray area.

It is a slippery slope of justification when we start saying that some titles are okay to be removed, but not others. Because the second that it is deemed acceptable for any content to be removed, it becomes easier for more and more content to be gradually be removed when/if it suits the studios and/or content providers for one reason or another, which will eventually impact content that more people do care about, even if it doesn't impact the absolute most popular titles.

The thing is that digital distribution of movies and TV content is still relatively young. The fact that someone who bought a piece of content a few years ago on Vudu, which now is no longer available for purchase, can still access it today doesn't not guarantee that will be the case 5, 10, 15, or 20 years from now. And if that piece of content is among that person's favorites, but is not the most mainstream/ popular title, then there is a danger of it being removed down the road.

Regardless of whether or not hosting files digitally is less costly than physical media manufacturing, as PenguinInfinity has pointed out, physical media does not have an ongoing cost for any company involved with making and distributing it after a particular title is discontinued and all copies have been sold (in terms of first hand retail).

But hosting files that they can no longer sell does come with an ongoing cost. Even if that cost is relatively minimal, if the number of titles that they can no longer make money off of keep adding up, then over time that can add up to a decent enough of an ongoing expense that they may look at that and consider dropping some of that content down the road. Plus with digital still being relatively young, you have people who have opted to go digital still buying a lot of catalog titles. But down the road, overall sales may slow down when people have bought most of the older content that they care about, and are only buying newer titles. At that point these services won't be bringing in as much money as they once were, while still hosting older files that they aren't making money off of. At some point they will be looking as those costs and considering what is best for their bottom line.

It's true that some discs may degrade or succumb to "disc rot" over time. And that would suck. But in that event, there are still other copies out there, able to be purchased. As long as copies in good condition still exist, there is recourse for someone effected who really cares about that title.

Plus, assuming that any discs were manufactured within reasonable quality standards (and are not defective due to poor manufacturing), on sheer principle, there is something that I find far more acceptable about a physical product wearing out over time due to use than I do about a piece of content being removed by an external party, taking away my access to it. The latter is more akin to someone coming into your home and taking some of your movies, or any other physical items... as opposed to any of those items just wearing out over time. And for those of us buying physical media, since a lot of it comes with the digital copy anyway, we can redeem that, have our discs, and have both forms as a fail-safe if the other becomes inaccessible to us.

"Hoarding" is a word that is flippantly thrown around far too often these days. Ever since those reality shows have brought it into the public consciousness, people like to evoke it regarding any kind of sizable collection of anything (be it physical, or in this case digital), even when well organized and handled neatly... which is the exact opposite of "hoarding."

The bottom line is that if someone pays for a piece of content, and it is not a rental with a specified limited time frame of being accessed, they shouldn't have to worry about it being removed. But that concern is very real.

The EULAs that everyone who buys things digitally agrees to are all one-sided, in favor of the service provider. They technically have the right to remove any content at any time. While I'm sure they will be careful about that, nothing is guaranteed.

Things could be removed intentionally due to costs, or a piece of content could be bought by another studio, or otherwise have the rights to it put into some legal gray area, and it could be pulled temporarily or permanently in regards to those things. And there are many other possibilities beyond that.


Even if time eventually proves that little to no content is ever removed in our lifetimes, we have no way of knowing that now. We aren't being given any guarantees or promises, and what we have to agree to on the digital side of things expressly states that we have no guarantees in that regard. There's little reason for us to put our eggs all in one basket that someone else is in control of and can take away at any time (which they are flat out stating in the service agreement).


Now if you don't care what happens to your content, that's your prerogative. But your mentality on this is very dangerous both in terms of these purchases erroring in favor of the consumer that buys them, and for film preservation in general. If more people think that way, it just further allows them to be taken advantage of in these regards.

I'm sure even others here who have fully embraced digital and purchase most of their content that way would disagree with your overall attitude on these things, and would have a big problem with content being removed.

It doesn't matter if someone has 10 titles or 10,000, and would never be able to watch all of that content more than once (if even that) in their lifetime. If they purchased it, they should have access to it. And even if someone has more content than they can realistically watch, it doesn't mean that the titles that they do regularly rewatch will not be among those effected when and if access to some content is removed.

The only thing I got out of this is you don’t want to accept change or like how capitalism works.

You guys can’t list where paid content has been removed from accounts, just that it “may be removed” based on an EULA. Studios, marketing firms, etc don’t care about your fears on things that they haven’t done yet and I’m certainty not going to sit around worried that in 20 yrs a title may disappear from my library. I am not holding film preservation standards to some monstrous degree when there’s millions of hours of content made monthly now.

You need to read up on cases surrounding these issues. Federal Courts have already found that disposal and selling of your digital copies directly is covered under the first sale doctrine and they are currently reviewing the secondary copy market right now in the Second Circuit. Courts already found your license as a valid purchase, no difference from the disc itself being the license, and they cannot remove purchases without returning your money to some extent.

This is just making a mountain out of a, in this case, nonexistent molehill.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Does all of this EULA talk remind anybody else of all the dire prognostications leading up to the release of UHD players?

My god, reading those threads you would have thought that federal troops were amassing in all the major population centers just waiting for orders to go all Fahrenheit 451 on our asses.

UHD players were gong to require a constant internet access and providers were going to be able to turn off access to our discs at will.

It was quite the show but at the end of the day all that sound and fury amounted to exactly nothing.

Online authentication of 4K UHD discs is a part of the specification for the format, but it has not been implemented and hopefully it never will be. It also can not be retroactively applied to 4K discs that are already released. All discs currently have the license necessary to play them located on the disc themselves.

These EULAs may never use the rights they give themselves, but those terms are there and they can be applied anytime they so choose. These clauses are included because there is a real possibility they will want to use them. The only justification for agreeing to such unfair terms is blind faith that the benevolence of the provider will prevail.

The providers list in great detail all the ways they could screw you over, but you simply trust they would never do it. The threats are right there and their customers just do the ostrich maneuver and insert their collective heads in to the ground.

I really want everyone to get what they pay for when they purchase their content, be it on disc or via digital. I hope these EULA terms remain a dormant risk. I am never happy to see someone get ripped off.

Nobody can take my discs away from me, excepting an armed intruder. Somebody can delete titles from your digital library, the EULAs expressly allow for it.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Ender14

Dawson's Creek would disagree with you. When the show aired, WB only paid for over the air rights to Paula Cole's "I Don't Wanna Wait". When they prepped the DVD release they paid for home media rights to the song for the first 2 seasons of the DVD, but when they didn't sell well they decided not pay for the rights for subsequent releases and replaced it with a different song.

So now when it streams it does not have the original theme song. But owners of the DVD can still listen to it as it was intended.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1683506.html

You just proved my statement? They didn’t have the deals worked out beforehand and it was changed.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So should people not express their concern at such rumours? Or should we all smoke our pipes and sing ‘Don’t worry be happy?’

It’s honestly just hilarious that it’s expressed as “concern”.

“We can’t even fix up old cars without bondo because parts aren’t made anymore but by god my copy of season 1 of KUWK better stay in my digital library until I’m dead and gone!”

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Online authentication of 4K UHD discs is a part of the specification for the format, but it has not been implemented and hopefully it never will be. It also can not be retroactively applied to 4K discs that are already released. All discs currently have the license necessary to play them located on the disc themselves.

These EULAs may never use the rights they give themselves, but those terms are there and they can be applied anytime they so choose. These clauses are included because there is a real possibility they will want to use them. The only justification for agreeing to such unfair terms is blind faith that the benevolence of the provider will prevail.

The providers list in great detail all the ways they could screw you over, but you simply trust they would never do it. The threats are right there and their customers just do the ostrich maneuver and insert their collective heads in to the ground.

I really want everyone to get what they pay for when they purchase their content, be it on disc or via digital. I hope these EULA terms remain a dormant risk. I am never happy to see someone get ripped off.

Nobody can take my discs away from me, excepting an armed intruder. Somebody can delete titles from your digital library, the EULAs expressly allow for it.

But they sure as hell can stop making Blu Ray players and make old models incompatible with future TVs. What do we do at that point?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

You need to read up on cases surrounding these issues. Federal Courts have already found that disposal and selling of your digital copies directly is covered under the first sale doctrine and they are currently reviewing the secondary copy market right now in the Second Circuit. Courts already found your license as a valid purchase, no difference from the disc itself being the license, and they cannot remove purchases without returning your money to some extent.

This is just making a mountain out of a, in this case, nonexistent molehill.

I can not find any citations that show that the courts have ruled on this subject in the manner you claim. Could you please provide such links and save me the time of hunting for them?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So should people not express their concern at such rumours? Or should we all smoke our pipes and sing ‘Don’t worry be happy?’

Or maybe put the pipes down for a while...

Web MD - How Does Marijuana Effect You?

Changes to Mind and Mood
Most people use marijuana because the high makes them feel happy, relaxed, or detached from reality.

Smoking pot can also have less-pleasant effects on your mind and mood, too. You might have:

• A distorted sense of time
• Random thinking
• Paranoia
• Anxiety
• Depression
• Short-term forgetfulness

These effects usually ease up a few hours after you’ve used the drug.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Groot

You just proved my statement? They didn’t have the deals worked out beforehand and it was changed.



It’s honestly just hilarious that it’s expressed as “concern”.

“We can’t even fix up old cars without bondo because parts aren’t made anymore but by god my copy of season 1 of KUWK better stay in my digital library until I’m dead and gone!”

Well, I don’t buy crap. The tv that I buy on Blu-ray is well worth owning to me. That’s how I work. If you pay, you own.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

But they sure as hell can stop making Blu Ray players and make old models incompatible with future TVs. What do we do at that point?

Sure, but unlike with these EULAs that is not a clearly stated risk, is it? EULAs tell you what they can do in direct language. It is not a risk I have to conjure up with my imagination; the EULAs tell you the risk to your face.

There are already so many blu-ray players in existence that the used market would flourish for many years if new players were no longer manufactured. Plus, they are incredibly durable. I have no worries about the hardware disappearing. I can still buy laserdisc players!

[veritas]

Originally Posted by octagon

Occam, that's who.

is it possible that a bunch of multinational corporations changed their plans because of some posts on some message boards? Sure, I suppose that's possible.

But the much simpler explanation for the disconnect between prediction and reality is that the people running around with their hair on fire were just plain wrong.

They probably did change their plans because of the backlash. Did you see the beating xbox had taken for proposing similar drm plans. Physical media has no reason to allow the studios to drm movies so you cant trade them, force advertising and brick movies when a server is down. They also probably realized uhd is already a hard sell given how minor the improvements it offers are.

I think occam would say they did not go though with the drm internet requirement because they saw the past pr nightmares from similar projects like the xboxone. The move gets you nothing but scorn from the physical community as microsoft proved.

It was also probably shut down because if a minority of studios did go though with it on some titles they would see a massive number of returns. imagine 10k returns because this movie wont play on my player every time they did try this move.

The occam razor for this is this is a really stupid idea lets not do it while it gets us nothing but our potential customers enmity.

[Vilya]

All I have found regarding digital files and the First Sales Doctrine is this Nov.13, 2017 article where Capital Records sued ReDigi, Inc.

" In Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc., this wrinkle has torn open the question: do consumers of digital works have the right “to sell or otherwise dispose of” the digital files they possess in the same way they do physical media? In that case, Capitol Records took offense to ReDigi’s attempts to create a viable resale market for iTunes files (and arguably other digital files, such as ebooks and video games, to name a few). "

ReDigi "would effectively delete the digital file from the original owner’s computer, place the file in a private “cloud” service, then eventually transfer the file to the new owner."

The court ruled in favor of Capital Records:

"Judge Sullivan followed this logic. Although he conceded that ReDigi was trying to operate like a “used record store,” it was impossible for the digital file to “migrate” from one location to another without the file being reproduced (even though the original file may no longer exist). By limiting the interpretation of the first-sale doctrine to “material items, like records, that the copyright owner puts into the stream of commerce,” he held that the fist-sale doctrine could not apply because ReDigi violated Capitol Records’ exclusive right of reproduction."

ReDigi is appealing that ruling, but I have not found any results of that appeal.

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/11/a-di...doctrine/?rf=1

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I can not find any citations that show that the courts have ruled on this subject in the manner you claim. Could you please provide such links and save me the time of hunting for them?

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. is handling the secondary market issues with copying a copy, as well as them stating you had the right to sell digital items in certain forms thus implication of the first sale doctrine. It’s a very narrow one but the cases used on the brief below highlight other issues.

I recommend reading:

Brief of Copyright Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal in Capitol Records et al. v. ReDigi et al., 16-2321 (2nd Cir. 2017)

For a full citation of cases supporting digital licenses (most refer to Microsoft type and iTunes) and the ownership of the licenses.

Also: Kirtsaeng (Supreme Court) as applied to ninth circuit cases and digital media. You can search on google scholar.

And Disney getting slammed over the Redbox Code sales:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ital-downloads

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by Groot

You just proved my statement? They didn’t have the deals worked out beforehand and it was changed.

No, I didn't prove your point. I proved that digital content can be altered or removed at any time for any reason.

Those that purchased the DVD's for season 1 and 2 can enjoy the show in it's original form. Those that rely on digital are stuck with an altered version.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Or maybe put the pipes down for a while...

Web MD - How Does Marijuana Effect You?

Changes to Mind and Mood
Most people use marijuana because the high makes them feel happy, relaxed, or detached from reality.

Smoking pot can also have less-pleasant effects on your mind and mood, too. You might have:

• A distorted sense of time
• Random thinking
• Paranoia
• Anxiety
• Depression
• Short-term forgetfulness

These effects usually ease up a few hours after you’ve used the drug.

I mean old school pipes, not weed!

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Ender14

No, I didn't prove your point. I proved that digital content can be altered or removed at any time for any reason.

Those that purchased the DVD's for season 1 and 2 can enjoy the show in it's original form. Those that rely on digital are stuck with an altered version.

Because they didn’t pay for a proper license.

But hey, what do I know? I just deal with licensing and IPs for a living.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

I recommend reading:

Brief of Copyright Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Reversal in Capitol Records et al. v. ReDigi et al., 16-2321 (2nd Cir. 2017)

For a full citation of cases supporting digital licenses (most refer to Microsoft type and iTunes) and the ownership of the licenses.

Also: Kirtsaeng (Supreme Court) as applied to ninth circuit cases and digital media. You can search on google scholar.

And Disney getting slammed over the Redbox Code sales:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ital-downloads

I found the brief you mentioned in your first recommendation. It simply supported Redigi's position and the court ruled in favor of Capital despite it.

The appeal before the Second Circuit Court looks to be ongoing. One of the three judges of the Second Circuit Court said he expected the case to reach the Supreme Court. The outcome will be interesting.

"Why is this not like a used CD store?" asked circuit court judge Rosemary Pooler.

"It's not possible to transfer without making a reproduction," answered Mandel.

"For all practical purposes, if we affirm, we're saying the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to digital works, right?" asked Newman.(One of the three judges)

Responded Mandel, "I think that's correct."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...-songs-1031629

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by Groot

Because they didn’t pay for a proper license.

But hey, what do I know? I just deal with licensing and IPs for a living.

I'm not arguing the licensing portion. Licensing is not the topic of this thread.

I am arguing that when you purchase movies digitally you are at the mercy of the content holder to alter or remove the product you paid for.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I found the brief you mentioned in your first recommendation. It simply supported Redigi's position and the court ruled in favor of Capital despite it.

The appeal before the Second Circuit Court looks to be ongoing. One of the three judges of the Second Circuit Court said he expected the case to reach the Supreme Court. The outcome will be interesting.

What I wanted you to take away from it was the court considered the items as tangible, in certain forms, under the first sale doctrine. By doing so the studios cannot steal your digital copies in the middle of the night as you have the right to retain them for as long as you wish to.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by octagon

Does all of this EULA talk remind anybody else of all the dire prognostications leading up to the release of UHD players?

My god, reading those threads you would have thought that federal troops were amassing in all the major population centers just waiting for orders to go all Fahrenheit 451 on our asses.

UHD players were gong to require a constant internet access and providers were going to be able to turn off access to our discs at will.

It was quite the show but at the end of the day all that sound and fury amounted to exactly nothing.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Online authentication of 4K UHD discs is a part of the specification for the format, but it has not been implemented and hopefully it never will be. It also can not be retroactively applied to 4K discs that are already released. All discs currently have the license necessary to play them located on the disc themselves.

These EULAs may never use the rights they give themselves, but those terms are there and they can be applied anytime they so choose. These clauses are included because there is a real possibility they will want to use them. The only justification for agreeing to such unfair terms is blind faith that the benevolence of the provider will prevail.

The providers list in great detail all the ways they could screw you over, but you simply trust they would never do it. The threats are right there and their customers just do the ostrich maneuver and insert their collective heads in to the ground.

I really want everyone to get what they pay for when they purchase their content, be it on disc or via digital. I hope these EULA terms remain a dormant risk. I am never happy to see someone get ripped off.

Nobody can take my discs away from me, excepting an armed intruder. Somebody can delete titles from your digital library, the EULAs expressly allow for it.

Exactly!

The reason people were concerned about this issue with 4K discs is because it is part of the spec, and it would essentially put the same potential issue and restrictions on discs that ALREADY exists with digital distribution.

So this is different than the 4K disc issue in the sense that we KNOW that these EULAs already apply to digitally distributed content and we are ALREADY dependent upon the service provider for ongoing access to it. We just didn't want the same thing to apply to 4K discs.

Originally Posted by Groot

The only thing I got out of this is you don’t want to accept change or like how capitalism works.

You guys can’t list where paid content has been removed from accounts, just that it “may be removed” based on an EULA. Studios, marketing firms, etc don’t care about your fears on things that they haven’t done yet and I’m certainty not going to sit around worried that in 20 yrs a title may disappear from my library. I am not holding film preservation standards to some monstrous degree when there’s millions of hours of content made monthly now.

You need to read up on cases surrounding these issues. Federal Courts have already found that disposal and selling of your digital copies directly is covered under the first sale doctrine and they are currently reviewing the secondary copy market right now in the Second Circuit. Courts already found your license as a valid purchase, no difference from the disc itself being the license, and they cannot remove purchases without returning your money to some extent.

This is just making a mountain out of a, in this case, nonexistent molehill.

I have no problem at all with capitalism. I just have a problem with versions of it where cash is exchanged for vague services, the fine print of which is very anti-consumer.

Traditionally captialism involves exchanging money for physical goods or services. With a physical good, unless it is something that is perishable and/or consumable (i.e. food, gasonline), you otherwise have it perpetually upon purchasing it until when and if you decide to get rid of it or whatever.

With services, you are either exchanging cash for a limited service, say for the car maintenance that you need right now, to have a new roof put on your house, etc. in which once the service is completed, the transaction is done. Even for ongoing services like phone, internet, cable TV, even Netflix, you are typically paying a monthly fee for ongoing service (until when/if the consumer decides to no longer use them, or stops paying for them). And short of these companies going out of business or being bought out, they will continue to offer these services going forward, as they are continuing to make money doing so.

The problem with digital distribution of purchased entertainment content is that for each movie purchased, it is essentially like either paying for a physical good or limited one time service in the sense that you pay for it once, but then you are still dependent forever on the service provider to access it. If it was DRM free, and we could back it up ourselves and use it without needing to re-authenticate later, that would be better, but of course then you have the issue of people being able to easily make unauthorized copies.

This has nothing to do with being against change in general or against capitalism. It has everything to do with us essentially paying for something that was previously a physical good, now no longer is, and that we only have very vague rights to access it and it can be taken away at any time as per the EULA.

And we are not making mountains out of molehills, especially not non-existent ones. There have been cases of content disappearing and being removed. They do tend to be the exception and not the rule, but it has happened. I will look up some specific examples later (I don't have time right now).

And honestly even if they give us our money back upon removing a purchase, while that's better than it being removed and not getting a refund, it what the person who paid for it wants to watch that movie, and if it happens to not be currently available through any other provider, then the refund does little to rectify that. From a certain perspective, it would be like saying it would be okay if I were to walk into your house and take your personal physical belongings without your permission as long as I left cash there for their approximate value.


At any rate, you can keep doing things the way you do them. That's otherwise fine. But you went from starting out simply stating how you do things and your lack of concern, and when others expressed why they feel differently, your responses have gotten more obnoxious in tone, and you are calling people hoarders, acting like you are essentially the sole arbiter of what content has "merit" of being accessible on an ongoing basis, acting like some content should be fine to remove just because you don't like it, and so on.

Even when I expressed why attitudes like yours are concerning to us, it wasn't meant in a malicious way. It was just stating that we have concerns, and here is why. And it's expressed in general terms of the overall concern, not in a way that is passing judgement on the content someone enjoys watching.

If you can't have a civil discussion about this, then maybe you should just leave.

Originally Posted by Groot

You just proved my statement? They didn’t have the deals worked out beforehand and it was changed.

No, not really. If anything it goes again what you've been saying about not having concern about being able to access content perpetually going forward through digital services.

It’s honestly just hilarious that it’s expressed as “concern”.

“We can’t even fix up old cars without bondo because parts aren’t made anymore but by god my copy of season 1 of KUWK better stay in my digital library until I’m dead and gone!”

With the exception of very select few who are car enthusiasts and have the money to have a collection of them, most people tend to have one car that they drive. While they may pick one based in part on looks, at the end of the day it is primarily a tool used to get from point A to point B. Once a car gets so old that it becomes ridiculously costly to maintain it, or parts are no longer available, people usually trade it in and get another car. In that sense, the function is the same, they can still get from point A to B.

But movie and TV content is not necessarily interchangeable. While I may still have access to other content that I like, if a particular movie that I really like is rendered inaccessible to me, then there isn't really any substitute for it other than another copy of the same movie.