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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

Thank you for the kindness.

I obviously care about "stuff" or I wouldn't buy the dumb stuff I do to get enjoyment out of. I'm pretty positive my perspective is very much influenced by seeing death and evil done by others to me or loved ones that I can have a sense of detachment in the view of not worrying about losing non-priority items. Do I waste an hour or more complaining to Apple about a $10 item or do I value my time (and patience) more that I just buy the $10 item again elsewhere?

This isn't a blanket approach to everything, but for fleeting entertainment I don't find the need to be possessive over it. I have movies I bought 10-15 years ago (and longer) that I've not touched since that time. Sure they're "there" should I want to watch them, but time has shown the chances of revisiting everything are very, very slim and if they vanished, I wouldn't even notice. Just an entire fluidity thing to personality, what you like at the time, how much you got from it, etc.

I sound like a Movie Buddhist.

In truth, I think a lot of buyers of media are like that in the sense of continued or new interests and lack of revisiting movies (classics/outliers aside).

Being a Movie Buddhist sounds like a happy person to be.

It's great that you don't sweat the small stuff. I tend to be the squeaky wheel that demands the grease- a byproduct of having ample free time and the stubbornness of a Missouri mule.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Being a Movie Buddhist sounds like a happy person to be.

It's great that you don't sweat the small stuff. I tend to be the squeaky wheel that demands the grease- a byproduct of having ample free time and the stubbornness of a Missouri mule.

Ah, a lot of folks are like that. Some folks believe if you haven’t used or seen something in 6-12 months, toss it/donate it. Clothes, etc. Obviously doesn’t fully apply to hobbies but the need to have something “secure” is a common trait. I used to have it but the weary old world took that from me, so I can toss clothes, older stuff, donate others, and just replenish and move on.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Do you feel like that with all your purchases or is it just films?

If you bought a twenty dollar toaster and five years later it stopped working would you sue the manufacturer or just go buy another toaster?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/column...8jPZXk.twitter

Just sort of seems like the physical media zealots have been waiting for this day and here it is. Think pieces are just popping up everywhere.

Good luck to everyone trying to house 150,000,000 discs.

I think it is an important wake up call for people who just assumed that "digital is forever" when buying movies through streaming/download services.

While I disagree with Groot's stance on this (more on this in a bit), I at least respect the fact that she is making an informed decision, knowing full well what she is agreeing to and being ready to at least accept those terms when/if that comes to pass.

While there are those of us with large collections, it's not necessarily about buying each and every movie out there. If someone has even 5, 10, or 20 movies that they REALLY REALLY care about, buying them physically should be a priority, even if they otherwise prefer the convenience of digital. The more obscure the movie, the more important it would be to have it physically. Even if removed from one digital store front, huge blockbuster films will most likely be easy to rebuy from somewhere.

But an obscure title that may have limited availability to begin with? If that gets delisted and access removed from those who bought it, then re-obtaining it may not be easy. Even if they give the customer a full refund, or even more than a full refund for the inconvenience, while that is nice, it doesn't get them back the movie that they love. And if this happens a long time down the road under the theoretical circumstances of physical media being scarce if not "exctint" (in terms of still being manufactured), then a physical copy of that movie may not be easily/affordably available (if available at all) for that person to get.


Storing even a large collection of discs doesn't necessarily have to take up as much space as many people's collections currently do. If keeping all movies in their original cases takes up too much room, the discs could always be transferred to slim CD jewel cases or CD envelopes and take up way less space. The original packaging could just be recycled or sold off to others who would want it. This should be a fine option for those who would go with digital due to space issues, since they don't care about having a particular box or something to begin with.

While I am something of a "packaging guy," sometimes buying Steelbooks/exclusive versions and so on, the movie is ultimately what matters most. If space ever became THAT much of a concern for me and it left me having to choose between getting rid of the original packaging (transferring everything to smaller packaging) or going all digital, then I would transfer everything to slim jewel cases or similar.



To me it all boils down to a matter of principle. While the loss of a title or two out of a huge collection(there are some in my own collection that if I no longer had them, I wouldn't be overly fussed about) isn't necessarily a big deal depending on which titles they are (others I care about far more), it is the manner in which they are lost that also factors into this.

As much as it would suck losing some or all of my collection to theft, flood, other natural disaster, other forms of damage, etc., most of those are things that are either beyond any person's control, are accidental, or in the case of theft, are the fault of a criminal 3rd party who otherwise had no involvement with the selling or purchasing of the title(s) in question.

The idea of titles being pulled and removed by the company through which I purchased them (even if it is a result of the movie rights changing hands or whatever) is just something that I find completely unacceptable as a concept, let alone in actual practice. On a much, much smaller and less important scale, it's kind of like the idea that the only people who should go to prison are those who are truly guilty, and that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person go to prison (and I know in actual practice the latter has unfortunately happened, but my point is that it simply shouldn't and should not be defended).

I do understand Groot's position that if 10 years down the road, a title that she already watched a few times disappears, she will have gotten her theoretical "money's worth" out of it, and she is fine with that. I get that position. I also fully understand her position that should would trade her whole collection for one more day with her grandfather. I'd do the same.

But people like myself are able to keep our overall priorities in all aspects of life straight while still being very passionate about our recreational interests and hobbies. As such, even with keeping the more important things in life in perspective and as a priority over movie collecting, it doesn't mean that I or anyone else should just be a-okay with getting bent over and screwed if companies take access to movies away. While there may be differences in terms of how the movies are purchased and obtained, and of course with digital store fronts having their long-ass terms of service agreements, to me, on sheer principle, there is no difference in my eyes between apple removing a movie from someone's iTunes account or a Best Buy employee walking into someone's home (unwelcomed and uninvited) and taking back a DVD or Blu-Ray that they bought from BB at some point in the past. Under no circumstances should anything resembling this be considered reasonable or acceptable, no matter how "important" it is in the grand scheme of life. If anything, it's almost more frustrating having to worry to this extent about things that should otherwise be fun and recreational.



It's not that I don't see the benefits of digital. And in theory, it could be better than physical in many respects. Putting aside the issue of having nice packaging in-hand, if digital could somehow be managed so that we are absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt guaranteed ongoing access to any content we buy (which to be honest, I would always second guess any such guarantee since things can always change and I don't have a crystal ball to see into the future - but in theory if I knew there would be no issues, then I'd be good with it), and with all titles, once made available, never being removed from one's collection or for others to buy going forward.... and if the quality were as good or better as the best physical media, and things like internet infrastructure issues and data caps (where applicable) didn't exist, and if things could be more easily custom organized, then it would be absolutely fantastic to have my whole collection and then some available at the click of a button!

But as it stands, because of there being too many hands in the pot, too many corporations worried about their own bottom lines (not that I think they shouldn't profit - I'm fine with paying for my content, I just want certain assurances in exchange for my money), and just too many hands in the pot in general, there are too many uncertainties, and this is just an example of it.

While many here who are pro-digital are aware of what they are agreeing to, there are A LOT of people out there who have no clue and take access to content that they paid for for granted.



If anything, this occurrence getting this level of attention will likely be a good thing one way or the other.

I see a couple of possibilities of what could happen (either separately or perhaps some combo of both).

1. It is a wake up call for digital customers who thus far haven't been aware of what they are agreeing to and the fact that their titles can be removed. For titles that they particularly care about, they may opt to buy them physically going forward. Them being informed is a good thing, and if they buy titles physically, then that's good for physical media.

In this scenario, there's really no downside for the pro-digital folks that doesn't already exist. A theoretical shift in some people going back to physical isn't going to stop the studios and digital store fronts from otherwise conducting "business as usual" in that regard.


2. This coming to light creates A LOT of push back, potentially gradually snowballing to the extent of laws being put in place for the rights of consumers of digital goods that doesn't allow for access to previously purchased content to be removed or something along those lines. That would be good for those already in favor of digital and for anyone who may (be it by choice or lack there of) make that shift in the future.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by octagon

If you bought a twenty dollar toaster and five years later it stopped working would you sue the manufacturer or just go buy another toaster?

If you bought twenty dollar toaster and five years later the manufacturer came into your home, grabbed your still-working toaster from your kitchen, and left with it, would you sue them, or at the very least complain and call attention to it publicly? Or would you just ignore it like everything is fine, and just go buy a new toaster?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by flyry

It's true. I just bought The Goldbergs Season 5 on DVD (love that show), the only physical format it is released on, even though it is available digitally in HD.

I was almost going to buy season 1 of Young Sheldon on DVD, at first thinking it was the only way it was going to be made available (I had only seen info on a DVD release up to that point), but then found out that a Blu-Ray version was being released as part of "Warner Archive," and got that instead.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

If you bought twenty dollar toaster and five years later the manufacturer came into your home, grabbed your still-working toaster from your kitchen, and left with it, would you sue them, or at the very least complain and call attention to it publicly? Or would you just ignore it like everything is fine, and just go buy a new toaster?

That's a silly analogy. Nobody's houses are being broken into.

Or maybe they are, I haven't been clicking the links. Is Apple breaking into people's houses?

Cause yeah, if that happened I'd be pretty pissed.

If not...

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

It's true. I just bought The Goldbergs Season 5 on DVD (love that show), the only physical format it is released on, even though it is available digitally in HD.

I was almost going to buy season 1 of Young Sheldon on DVD, at first thinking it was the only way it was going to be made available (I had only seen info on a DVD release up to that point), but then found out that a Blu-Ray version was being released as part of "Warner Archive," and got that instead.

I get what you were saying but your example was a bit extreme. TV is one thing but very few movies would only be on DVD and not on blu and only on 4K streaming.

I'd say panic room has a chance as it looks like the physical UHD has been scrapped but still.

Personally I will always choose the highest quality even if that appears to be digital.


I also knew when I saw that story posted on a 4K FB group yesterday that you all would have a field day with it in this thread.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

If you bought a twenty dollar toaster and five years later it stopped working would you sue the manufacturer or just go buy another toaster?

No, but I don’t collect toasters. When watching my toast pop up, I don't feel a emotional attachment to the toast either, many films I do.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's a silly analogy. Nobody's houses are being broken into.

Or maybe they are, I haven't been clicking the links. Is Apple breaking into people's houses?

Cause yeah, if that happened I'd be pretty pissed.

If not...

Your toaster analogy is a little silly, too. A toaster failing is not anywhere the near same concept as the manufacturer denying access to your purchased toaster. A movie title is a very specific and unique work of art; a toaster is a ubiquitous appliance. Replacing the former could be quite difficult, expensive, or even impossible, while finding an adequate toaster to toast your bagel will be simple and inexpensive.

The point is that access to a product that you purchased should not simply be revocable at the whim of the seller. The dollar amount involved may or not be trivial, but the principle is important.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by flyry

I get what you were saying but your example was a bit extreme. TV is one thing but very few movies would only be on DVD and not on blu and only on 4K streaming.

I don't deny that. Most movies are released on Blu-Ray and in many instances 4K, thankfully, and I opt for the highest quality option when that is the case. I'm just saying that if the only physical option were to be DVD, I would opt for that regardless of what options are otherwise available digitally.

Personally I will always choose the highest quality even if that appears to be digital.

For me, physical ownership is more important than quality, while I do otherwise find quality to be very important.

It has yet to happen and I can't say if it ever will, but if ever there were a case of me opting to buy digital because quality was an extremely major issue for a particular title and the only physical option were DVD, then I'd still buy the DVD up front, and wait to get the lowest price possible for the digital version. But physical would still be the priority.

[Steedeel]

Digital is the worst thing to happen to home entertainment in my lifetime. It’s the ****** pits!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's a silly analogy. Nobody's houses are being broken into.

Or maybe they are, I haven't been clicking the links. Is Apple breaking into people's houses?

Cause yeah, if that happened I'd be pretty pissed.

If not...

The point is more so that it is the seller taking back/removing access to the item in both scenarios. The house is being broken into in one scenario because it's the only way for the seller to get the item back, while the other can be done remotely. Sure, the break-in would be more intrusive overall, but from a retailer-consumer standpoint, with the retailer taking away the item purchased from the consumer, the point is the same.

Vilya's post pretty much covered it:

Originally Posted by Vilya

Your toaster analogy is a little silly, too. A toaster failing is not anywhere the near same concept as the manufacturer denying your access to that toaster. A movie title is a very specific and unique work of art; a toaster is a ubiquitous appliance. Replacing the former could be quite difficult, expensive, or even impossible, while finding an adequate toaster to toast your bagel will be simple and inexpensive.

The point is that access to a product that you purchased should not simply be revocable at the whim of the seller. The dollar amount involved may or not be trivial, but the principle is important.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Digital is the worst thing to happen to home entertainment in my lifetime. It’s the ****** pits!

But it's okay for gaming?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I don't deny that. Most movies are released on Blu-Ray and in many instances 4K, thankfully, and I opt for the highest quality option when that is the case. I'm just saying that if the only physical option were to be DVD, I would opt for that regardless of what options are otherwise available digitally.



For me, physical ownership is more important than quality, while I do otherwise find quality to be very important.

It has yet to happen and I can't say if it ever will, but if ever there were a case of me opting to buy digital because quality was an extremely major issue for a particular title and the only physical option were DVD, then I'd still buy the DVD up front, and wait to get the lowest price possible for the digital version. But physical would still be the priority.

I see disc purchases as a way to tangibly own and to have irrevocable access to the item bought. When contemplating a purchase, I do not even consider digital because it fails to meet these requirements. After ownership and control over content has been established, then I seek out the best quality available. If that means DVD, then DVD it is.

For me, digital is for rentals and convenience, nothing more. The one-sided and changeable terms of service that digital content providers mandate amount to demanding a blank check from the consumer. I won't give anyone a blank check.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Groot

But it's okay for gaming?

I was almost going to bring this up.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I was almost going to bring this up.

But it isn’t the same gang. I’m sure he’ll fire back with the same argument he did when I brought up cable

[Wendell R. Breland]

Looks like another



has started .

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Your toaster analogy is a little silly, too.

Not really. The point of the toaster analogy is that reasonable people don't expect everything they buy to last until the End of Days.

In fact, with relatively few exceptions (a house, maybe) reasonable people don't expect anything we buy to last until the End of Days.

Originally Posted by Vilya

The point is that access to a product that you purchased should not simply be revocable at the whim of the seller.

Call me old-fashioned but I think that should be up to the seller. If the seller wants to sell me the product outright and completely transfer ownership that's up to him. If she only wants to license the product that's her call.

The seller is the one who actually owns the stuff, after all.

Now, of course the consumers get a say too. They can say 'thank you but no thank you' if they don't like the sellers terms.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

The point is more so that it is the seller taking back/removing access to the item in both scenarios. The house is being broken into in one scenario because it's the only way for the seller to get the item back, while the other can be done remotely. Sure, the break-in would be more intrusive overall, but from a retailer-consumer standpoint, with the retailer taking away the item purchased from the consumer, the point is the same.

If I buy one of those smart doorbells and the company goes belly up in a few years and stops supporting all the cool smart features or decides they want to raise their subscription fee by some ridiculous amount I suppose I could rage against the machine and go on and on about the injustice of it all.

Or I could just buy a new doorbell.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Groot

But it's okay for gaming?

Like I said before, gaming is a like for like quality situation. It’s the EXACT same experience on a OLED, LCD or a projctor. That goes for audio quality too.