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

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Ender14

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.

It wasn’t altered post purchase or post offer for sale. The licensing didn’t include further distribution rights after the 2nd season so they altered all new disc and digital offerings. That’s the point I made to begin with.

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by Groot

It wasn’t altered post purchase or post offer for sale. The licensing didn’t include further distribution rights after the 2nd season so they altered all new disc and digital offerings. That’s the point I made to begin with.

I give up. Good luck to you in your digital future.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

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.



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.




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.



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.

Keep telling me what do and how to act and I will get more and more obnoxious because a man behind a keyboard isn’t going to dictate how I respond to a discussion.

Anyone who posts supporting digital in this thread gets attacked. Members are even mocked for their setups. People are ignorant of costs and licensing yet sprout off stupidity of what they don’t know.

I’ll freely laugh and mock someone whining over the loss of Amazon Prime streaming of the Kardashians if that’s the base example of the sky is falling on digital ownership. It didn’t take it off the available lists of those who bought it, you just can’t buy it on there now. Big deal. You wanna get bent over the idea that some media may be gone in the future, feel free, but just accept that a large portion of society doesn’t care and most are turning to instant gratification media like YouTube if under a certain age group.

[Dustin44]

Originally Posted by Groot

To chime in on the digital code purchasing debate, I've paid full price on VUDU for recent releases like The Last Jedi & Thor:Ragnarok. I'll pay $20 for a full code with all the goodies on digital and get the perk of watching it a few weeks earlier.

Yeah, I know a couple of people I talk to on this site do the same thing. They want to see the movie as soon as possible. (which may be 2 or 3 weeks before the disc comes out)

Originally Posted by Vilya

I'd rather pay the $20 and have both the discs and the code, even though I have no use for the code, generally.

Originally Posted by Vilya

I understand the satisfaction that comes from instant gratification, but even if I had no interest in owning the disc, I would still buy the disc combo pack when the prices were equal.

I would then gift the discs to a friend, donate them to a library or a hospital, or simply sell them. There are even people on this website that will pay you $5 for the slipcover alone. It's just another way of getting the most bang for your buck.

True. I know myself I would probably just wait and buy the disc and digital.

But some people do want the movie as soon as possible. Which I have no problem with.

Also, if you have no use for the code, you could gift it to someone, like you do with your disc's.

And I have given discs to friends, and digital copies to friends. I never really thought of donating discs to the hospital. That is a good idea.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Additionally there have already been thousands of digital titles that have been removed from sale but are currently still available in people's collections. Anyone who missed their chance to buy them won't have another opportunity. They can't just buy a used copy from an existing owner like they can with out-of-print physical copies.

I know the movie Memento has been available off and on to purchase on Vudu for a while now. It was available to buy for a while, then it wasn't. Now it is available to purchase again.

I thought I had missed my chance to buy it on Vudu, but like I said, it is available to buy again. I wonder if there are other titles that are the same way on Vudu?

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

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.

That's why I have my favorite films on Blu-Ray and Digital.

I guess if I did have one of my favorite films on digital only, and it somehow disappeared. I would just by the disc.

[Vilya]

The Disney vs. Redbox case is very different from the Capital Records vs. ReDigi case.

In the former, Redbox was purchasing retail copies of Disney discs, renting those discs in their kiosks, and then simply selling the code, not the actual file, printed on the insert in each movie case. People on this forum do that routinely.

The Capital vs. ReDigi case involves the actual file. Capital asserts that the file can not be transferred without reproducing it and that the right to reproduction is theirs solely. In the initial court ruling in favor of Capital the judge "held that the fist-sale doctrine could not apply because ReDigi violated Capitol Records’ exclusive right of reproduction."

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Ender14

I give up. Good luck to you in your digital future.

Thanks!

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The Disney vs. Redbox case is very different from the Capital Records vs. ReDigi case.

In the former, Redbox was purchasing retail copies of Disney discs, renting those discs in their kiosks, and then simply selling the code, not the actual file, printed on the insert in each movie case. People on this forum do that routinely.

The Capital vs. ReDigi case involves the actual file. Capital asserts that the file can not be transferred without reproducing it and that the right to reproduction is theirs solely. In the initial court ruling in favor of Capital the judge "held that the fist-sale doctrine could not apply because ReDigi violated Capitol Records’ exclusive right of reproduction."

Read the case vs the top google link summary. The court didn’t extend it to ReDigi but specifically said the purchaser had the right of resale.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

Read the case vs the top google link summary. The court didn’t extend it to ReDigi but specifically said the purchaser had the right of resale.

I followed the Redbox link you provided, actually. I did not simply read the top Google link summary.

It looks like the argument hinges on the files themselves. The copyright holders assert that these files can not be transferred from one person to another without reproducing them and that, therefore, violates their exclusive rights of reproduction.

The codes sold by Redbox are not the actual files, but simply the printed access codes found on the insert with each disc they purchased. The insert with the code is, in a very real sense, a tangible item that can be transferred.

That's my understanding of it. There is a lot to read here and I have read it rather quickly. It will be very interesting to see how the courts ultimately rule on these questions.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The only justification for agreeing to such unfair terms is blind faith that the benevolence of the provider will prevail.

Maybe. Or maybe the ostriches just don't think a license that effectively expires in ten or more years is terribly unfair. Maybe they think a buck a year (or whatever it works out to) is a pretty fair price for a movie.

Maybe they're don't necessarily expect a ten dollar purchase to last for the rest of their freaking lives and maybe that's not terribly unreasonable on their parts.

Maybe - and I'm just thinking out loud here - but maybe we're the unreasonable ones. Maybe the people who are saying you can have The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) when you pry it from my cold, dead hands are the ones who need a reality check.

I'm just saying.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I followed the Redbox link you provided, actually. I did not simply read the top Google link summary.

It looks like the argument hinges on the files themselves. The copyright holders assert that these files can not be transferred from one person to another without reproducing them and that, therefore, violates their exclusive rights of reproduction.

The codes sold by Redbox are not the actual files, but simply the printed access codes found on the insert with each disc they purchased. The insert with the code is, in a very real sense, a tangible item that can be transferred.

That's my understanding of it. There is a lot to read here and I have read it rather quickly. It will be very interesting to see how the courts ultimately rule on these questions.

The federal court in ReDigi gave the right of resale to the purchaser, in certain forms. That’s a big step for putting your digital items under the first sale doctrine. Their decision, should it be up held as the circuit level, goes a long way in keeping studios or whoever from removing digital content at will like you guys fear. Despite the fact they haven’t removed libraries some two decades into this form of media, for the paranoid it should offer comfort. Federal Courts holding the consumer has a first sale right makes it that the license cannot be revoked or altered. That’s what some of you focus on, this decision already on the lower court level addressed it. You have the right, for the life of the device and service have the right to transfer it.

Even state law is catching up to your rights:

28 states have stepped in to create laws that will protect people's digital assets and give the person's family the right to access and manage those accounts after the owner has died. Plus, The Uniform Law Commission created the Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which is aimed to allow executors, trustees, or the person appointed by court ("conservator" or "fiduciary") complete access to deceased's digital assets. While it's not yet the law of the land, it shows there's some forward momentum and progress regarding this issue.

Give the law 2-3 more years and everything people are worried about and being paranoid over goes away with a few changes to the laws. Section 109 is even being revisited as there are current revisions up for vote.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Maybe. Or maybe the ostriches just don't think a license that effectively expires in ten or more years is terribly unfair. Maybe they think a buck a year (or whatever it works out to) is a pretty fair price for a movie.

Maybe they're don't necessarily expect a ten dollar purchase to last for the rest of their freaking lives and maybe that's not terribly unreasonable on their parts.

Maybe - and I'm just thinking out loud here - but maybe we're the unreasonable ones. Maybe the people who are saying you can have The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) when you pry it from my cold, dead hands are the ones who need a reality check.

I'm just saying.

I need to watch my copy of The Little Shop of Horrors 1960. Thanks for the reminder.

If you think of digital purchases as simply a long term lease, then that rational works just fine.

Obviously, I am not invested in digital purchases. My interest in them is mostly academic. I do think people should be more aware of what they are agreeing to, though.

Even so, I want people to be happy with how they spend their hard earned money and if they are then that is all that is important. Arguing against happiness is rather silly, afterall.

[octagon]

What do we want?!?!?

Fiduciary access to digital assets!!!

When do we want it?!?!?!

Umm, we dunno, we're not really sure what it is!!!

[Groot]

Originally Posted by octagon

Maybe. Or maybe the ostriches just don't think a license that effectively expires in ten or more years is terribly unfair. Maybe they think a buck a year (or whatever it works out to) is a pretty fair price for a movie.

Maybe they're don't necessarily expect a ten dollar purchase to last for the rest of their freaking lives and maybe that's not terribly unreasonable on their parts.

Maybe - and I'm just thinking out loud here - but maybe we're the unreasonable ones. Maybe the people who are saying you can have The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) when you pry it from my cold, dead hands are the ones who need a reality check.

I'm just saying.

Exactly.

VHS became DVD which became Blu-ray, now it’s UHD and 4K content, as well as digital. I paid $50-100 for VHS back in the day, didn’t last my lifetime. I paid similar amounts for DVDs, didn’t last my lifetime. I bought some Blus a few years ago that already got 4K remasters, now I buy digital content too. I have some of the same films more than a handful of times. Some of those VHS movies never got upgraded or nothing past the DVD that are now obscure or overpriced. I don’t expect anything to last me my entire life and I’m cool with buying content again. Plus the lost content from yesteryears can be replaced with new. Rinse and Repeat.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I need to watch my copy of The Little Shop of Horrors 1960. Thanks for the reminder.

If you think of digital purchases as simply a long term lease, then that rational works just fine.

Obviously, I am not invested in digital purchases. My interest in them is mostly academic. I do think people should be more aware of what they are agreeing to, though.

Even so, I want people to be happy with how they spend their hard earned money and if they are then that is all that is important. Arguing against happiness is rather silly, afterall.

Hey! I purposely ignore the EULA hoping someone like Steve Jobs shows up to do experiments I didn’t know I agreed to.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

Hey! I purposely ignore the EULA hoping someone like Steve Jobs shows up to do experiments I didn’t know I agreed to.

I think Steve is dead; I sure hope he doesn't show up to do any experimenting on me!

Entire digital libraries have not disappeared, but certainly some titles have and the providers got away with it. I think that needs to be rectified. The crappiness of those titles is not relevant, either.

I also hope that the courts, and Congress if necessary, establish consumer rights regarding digital purchases akin to what come with disc purchases. I very much dislike the one-sided terms that are contained in these EULAs and I would love for them to be found unenforceable.

While I clearly favor disc purchases, I think all purchases should come with the same rights. Then we can just get back to the basic arguments of PQ/AQ quality, pricing, convenience, etc.

[flyry]

This thread is insufferable

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by flyry

This thread is insufferable

Contribute more and make it better then.

I like reading your comments despite how seldom I agree with them. I bet other people like reading them, too.

[Dustin44]

Originally Posted by flyry

This thread is insufferable

I have been lurking.

And there does seem to be a lot of bickering in this thread.

BUT there are a lot of interesting posts too.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Unfortunately that would come with it's own set of problems. Imagine there is a small company that makes a bunch of cheap movies. All of these movies are sold digitally to a very small number of people. With the laws you're talking about that company would be required to continue paying to make those movies available forever.

I don't think any company should be required to support all their products forever. But we, the customers, shouldn't be buying products that require continued support to function.

The best thing the laws could do is require a change in terminology by the digital providers. They should not be able to use the term "own" for buying digital purchases. It should be very clearly stated that these are long-term rentals and can be removed at any time.

I think the terms should be clear, and equitable, as to what you are getting. Labeling digital as long term rentals would clarify the nature of the transaction a great deal; it should even specify precisely the length of that rental period.

Words like "purchase" and "own" imply a sense of permanence to me and if that is not what digital providers mean, they should replace those words with "lease" and "rent."

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Unfortunately that would come with it's own set of problems. Imagine there is a small company that makes a bunch of cheap movies. All of these movies are sold digitally to a very small number of people. With the laws you're talking about that company would be required to continue paying to make those movies available forever.

I don't think any company should be required to support all their products forever. But we, the customers, shouldn't be buying products that require continued support to function.

They could simply offer a DRM free version of the movie for download before removing it forever. That's how some other digital services have gotten around that thorny issue.