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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Of course it's nonsense. When someone rents or borrows a disc they have access to the content for as along as they possess the disc. When someone purchases a disc they have access to the content for as long as they possess the disc.

So does a shoplifter. Possession alone does not grant a license.

Your imaginary requirements that a person retain the disc as proof of license is what is absurd. If such a requirement existed, you should be able to quote it and cite its source. Nothing states that anywhere. No one will ever demand to see your disc as proof of anything because mere possession only proves that you have it, not how you got it. You would need your receipt to prove that you purchased it and there is no requirement that you keep that, either.

This is really no different than redeeming digital codes and then selling the disc, or keeping the disc and then selling the code, even though the terms of service that came with the digital code forbids this practice. Two people get a movie and only one of them made a legitimate purchase. No one here seems to have any problem with that at all. People rationalize what they do while condemning others in the same breath for doing what amounts to the same damn thing.

Again, this website ignores all of that and facilitates the buying and selling of these codes. TOS be damned.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

At the risk of sounding pretentious, it really is a massive shame that you saw the American version of GOODNIGHT MOMMY first.. don't get me wrong, I was very much looking forward to it as I think Naomi has an amazing track record of bringing foreign films to audiences that don't like subtitles. My wife is American and falls into this category.
IMHO there is no need to watch the German version of FUNNY GAMES as the original director has essentially made a shot for shot remake with both Watts and Tim Roth both playing to the strengths of the original performances.
Conversely, I love it when a movie is remade of a flawed original so that the new makers can retool.... but

In the case of GOODNIGHT MOMMY, the original Austrian production is such a masterclass of "film" making that this "made for TV" version really lived down to it's pedigree. This new version is nothing more than an interesting little time waster with a plot that's a cut above.... I finished it late at night with the intention of going to bed right after...
I ended up screening the Austrian Bluray right after to cleanse the pallet.... right from the opening establishing shot in glorious scope, you know which version is superior...

Agreed. Felt the same way about ‘Let The Right One In’ and the remake ‘Let Me In’. The original was superior to the still quite good remake.

[Vilya]

Some people define piracy as any unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work.

Oxford simply puts it this way: "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work."

Webster defines it as: "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

Dictionary. com has it as: "the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc."

Under these definitions anyone who made a copy of a copyrighted work is guilty of piracy, whether or not DRM is present. By these definitions, anyone who has ever made a copy of a copyrighted work, no matter the reason, no matter if they kept the source disk, is still guilty of piracy.

Hoist the Jolly Roger, mateys! If alchav is a pirate, then so is almost everyone here. We just rationalize our actions differently.

[bhampton]

Hey,

No worries .... I have the 2014 version of Goodnight Mommy and both versions of Let the Right One In.



I didn't find Crawl when I went to town today, .... but perhaps its for the best as I did stuff I wanted.

First a couple of DVDs from the $1.25 store.



Then, the Simpsons Arcade 1Up on Clearance for $199 at Walmart. !



I'm keeping this purchase in the box until I find out how mad it makes my wife.

I just moved my Ms Pac Man machine over by the washer and dryer because laundry-mats are where I used to play games like this. This one, if I keep it, would require mods like I did to my other Arcade 1up as I would want to add all the 4 player games like Ninja Turtles, Golden Axe, Gauntlet and also all my "horizontal" games which are currently windowboxed on my Ms Pac Man machine.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Hey,

No worries .... I have the 2014 version of Goodnight Mommy and both versions of Let the Right One In.

Me too. Let The Right One In is in my top 100 of all time.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

So does a shoplifter. Possession alone does not grant a license.

Vilya, some of your view points are confusing. A shoplifted physical copy is also illegal therefore doesn't grant you anything legal.

Simple terms, legal purchase of a disc, you then you have legal access disc contents. Sell disc and you no longer have access to it. Its gone, off in another state. There is no need to revoke a license. And the content owner did not license you to make a copy and in fact forbid you to make a copy.

Really, can't we just move on, it appears the members here are tired of the back and forth. I am done, off to the store.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Agreed. Felt the same way about ‘Let The Right One In’ and the remake ‘Let Me In’. The original was superior to the still quite good remake.

Very much agreed.... both are amazing movies, but the original takes it....specifically for the most misunderstood shot in the whole movie...lol...

There's no way an American audience could get their heads around that one... I actually find in my discussions with those that have seen the original, that many have missed the significance.... it's actually a case where your display's ability to resolve a dark scene can make or break your interpretation of the film

[Vilya]

NOLO, a legal encyclopedia website has an interesting definition for piracy:

"A colloquial term without legal significance often used to describe willful copyright, patent, and trademark infringement."

https://www.nolo.com/dictionary/piracy-term.html

They certainly seem rather blase about it!

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Well .... I have the M1 Mac Mini and the ATV4K. Maybe I can help.

It is sort of a PITA. If you want HUD on your ATV4K you will need to install Xcode (here) on your Mini if you do not have it installed already. It is several GB in size.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

Very much agreed.... both are amazing movies, but the original takes it....specifically for the most misunderstood shot in the whole movie...lol...

There's no way an American audience could get their heads around that one... I actually find in my discussions with those that have seen the original, that many have missed the significance.... it's actually a case where your display's ability to resolve a dark scene can make or break your interpretation of the film

It was just more subtle overall for me, therefore every shock had far more impact. The casting was perfect for the original. The girl was vulnerable yet knowing, a balance that the actress pulled off.

Chloe didn’t quite have the same vibe for me.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Vilya, some of your view points are confusing. A shoplifted physical copy is also illegal therefore doesn't grant you anything legal.

Simple terms, legal purchase of a disc, you then you have legal access disc contents. Sell disc and you no longer have access to it. Its gone, off in another state. There is no need to revoke a license. And the content owner did not license you to make a copy and in fact forbid you to make a copy.

Really, can't we just move on, it appears the members here are tired of the back and forth. I am done, off to the store.

Of course a shoplifted disc is illegal. That's why possession alone does not grant a license. That was the point.

You no longer have access to the disc if it becomes lost, stolen, or unplayable, too. No more disc means no more access. Suck it up and buy another one, right?

The content owner did not license you to make copies and put them on your server, either, but you still did. The content owner never granted any exceptions to those who wanted their own servers. They did not grant exceptions for people wanting to make back-ups, either.

I will call a bus so we can all get on it together and turn ourselves in.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Me too. Let The Right One In is in my top 100 of all time.

is a great movie. Not one that I would place on a top 100 list, but still excellent.

The remake is not half bad, either. .

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

How many here own a ATV4K and a Mac computer? Do you have Display HUD on your ATV4K? If not would you be interested in installing Display HUD?

Last night in prime time (2100 EDT) started watching latest episode of The House of Dragons on Shield Pro and it looked really soft so I switched to the ATV4K, turned on Display HUD and continued Dragons. HUD showed network bandwidth as ≈ 15 Mbps, video bitrate as ≤ 5 Mbps, source as 3840 x 2160, display as 1920 x 1080. Next I tried The Rings of Power via Prime Video. HUD showed network bandwidth as ≈ 100 Mbps, video bitrate as 20 Mbps, source as 3840 x 2160, display as 3840 x 2160. The Batman via Vudu, HUD showed network bandwidth as ≈ 15 Mbps, video bitrate as 4 Mbps, source as 3840 x 2160, display as 1920 x 1080. The Batman via Movies Anywhere, HUD showed network bandwidth as ≈ 100 Mbps, video bitrate as 25 Mbps, source as 3840 x 2160, display as 3840 x 2160.

As can be seen, large differences in network bandwidth between end user and CDN. Would like to see the results from other users.

All that effort and all those numbers just to tell us what our own eyes have already told us: streaming is lesser than.

I may not be able to quantify it as you have, but I don't really need to as real world observations speak for themselves.

[crutzulee]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It was just more subtle overall for me, therefore every shock had far more impact. The casting was perfect for the original. The girl was vulnerable yet knowing, a balance that the actress pulled off.

Chloe didn’t quite have the same vibe for me.

I actually really like Chloe in the remake... but the actress in the original had to give a more subtle performance given that

[Show spoiler] SHE WASN'T PLAYING A GIRL!

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Of course a shoplifted disc is illegal. That's why possession alone does not grant a license. That was the point.

Possession alone does not grant a license, but it is one of the necessary factors.

Additionally shoplifting is not copyright infringement or piracy. The shoplifter stole from the store, not from the studio who owns the copyright.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Possession alone does not grant a license, but it is one of the necessary factors.

Additionally shoplifting is not copyright infringement or piracy. The shoplifter stole from the store, not from the studio who owns the copyright.

I very much doubt that the studio shares your opinion. The studio wants a license to be purchased, not a disc to be taken.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I very much doubt that the studio shares your opinion.

A crime by any other name is still a crime.

A shoplifter wouldn't be charged with any additional crimes for watching a movie they stole. Even though according to you they don't have a license to do so.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

A shoplifter wouldn't be charged with any additional crimes for watching a movie they stole. Even though according to you they don't have a license to do so.

What the crime IS called was never the point. A crime is a crime. The purchase grants the license, not the mere possession of the disc.

Only James Bond has a



No one has a license to steal.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I very much doubt that the studio shares your opinion. The studio wants a license to be purchased, not taken.

If you sell a piece of artwork you made to someone else and it gets stolen from them are you entitled to any compensation? Because that's basically what you're saying by involving the studio in a shoplifting case.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

If you sell a piece of artwork you made to someone else and it gets stolen from them are you entitled to any compensation? Because that's basically what you're saying by involving the studio in a shoplifting case.

You are in effect arguing that shoplifting discs does not harm the studios and that is a brain fart that is just too stupid to even entertain.