Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 153 posts

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#31

Post by pavel_lishin »

realityking wrote: post #25
hedora wrote: post #2

Similar shenanigans are the reason I cancelled Disney+. I’ll pay a monthly fee for your entire back library. Otherwise, no thanks. Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale? I’d love to see a copyright overhaul that formalized abandonware and extended it to back catalogs of film and music. That way, people could legally torrent everything currently missing from these streaming platform…

A lot of content is not available as streaming flat rates but via various rental or purchase platforms (iTunes, Amazon Video, etc.) There’s no (and there should be no) obligation to make things available for bargain dollars. If the publisher things the movie is worth a $15 dollar purchase or $8 rental, they can charge that. It’s our right not to watch it if we don’t think it’s worth that.

Arguably, there's no obligation to make things available at all.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#32

Post by fedorareis »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #16
jayrot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purely devil's advocate would be someone along the lines of -- just because it isn't for sale now doesn't mean it might never be. Pirating it now deprives the owner of some amount of ability to make money from it in the future. Pretty flimsy, imo.

I've upvoted you because this point needs to be countered and stopped. Something that was pirated does NOT equal a lost sale. I might enjoy Charlie Chaplin films, I would never pay for the ability to watch them. I don't feel it is worth my money. It doesn't matter if it becomes available at some-point in the future, I won't ever pay for it. If anti-piracy measures were 100% effective and reasonable and I couldn't get…

All radio stations do pay for the music they play. They are required to acquire public performance licenses and report the songs they played to the licensing groups so the licensing groups can collect the correct royalties from them and distribute them correctly.

IIRC this is actually why Spotify’s T&Cs don’t allow usage for businesses or public gatherings because they don’t pay out at the public performance licensing rate.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#33

Post by me_me_me »

yters wrote: post #18
vbezhenar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll pirate book if it’s not available in DRM-free format for reasonable price.

Do you have a right to everyone's IP who doesn't fit your expectations for reasonable access and price?

No, and so what?

Maybe if you were smarter businessman I would buy it off you instead. But my other option is to get a copy for the 'internet'.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#35

Post by Solocomplex »

paxys wrote: post #19
jancsika wrote: post #9

I propose the following paradigm which I'll call "RickRoll UIs." The developer builds a beautiful interface for searching, curating, and organizing media in a given genre. Everything down to the moment of streaming works as you'd expect, at which point some boring public domain content is looped for the given duration of that stream. Users would get the benefit of having the curated data accessible through the GUI--…

Building the interface itself is the trivial part of this exercise. How are you going to source the database of metadata of every media item produced in the last century?

TVDB and others have great APIs for this purpose.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#36

Post by khazhoux »

Mouse in Manhattan is a wonderful short. The storytelling, the pacing, and the orchestral score are magical.

But there is the small issue of Jerry falling into a vial of shoe polish and then popping his head out -- in full blackface. Yup, that's not allowed today. I hope they just correct that (but without messing up the music) rather than outright ban it.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#37

Post by chris11 »

jancsika wrote: post #9

I propose the following paradigm which I'll call "RickRoll UIs." The developer builds a beautiful interface for searching, curating, and organizing media in a given genre. Everything down to the moment of streaming works as you'd expect, at which point some boring public domain content is looped for the given duration of that stream. Users would get the benefit of having the curated data accessible through the GUI--…

That reminds me of trying to stream a tv show off of the channel's website a few years ago. I kept getting an error whenever I tried to stream the actual episode. The worst part was that the ads worked, so to retry I would have to watch a couple of ads just to find out the episode wouldn't play.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#38

Post by wlesieutre »

chadash wrote: post #7
hedora wrote: post #2

Similar shenanigans are the reason I cancelled Disney+. I’ll pay a monthly fee for your entire back library. Otherwise, no thanks. Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale? I’d love to see a copyright overhaul that formalized abandonware and extended it to back catalogs of film and music. That way, people could legally torrent everything currently missing from these streaming platform…

> Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale?... (Offline-only distribution would count as “abandoned” in this regime.) Let's say I author a book and sell it as a paperback, but decide for whatever reason that I don't want to sell an e-book. Would you apply the same reasoning there? Is it ethical for you to torrent an unpaid for e-book copy because you've decided that's more convenient…

Is it ethical to sell a paperback and not an ebook in 2021 knowing that you're making it inaccessible to people who need larger font sizes to read it? Ebook readers are great for book accessibility, but if someone won't sell you an ebook it doesn't do much good.

EDIT - I forgot to get to my point, which is that I have no ethical issue with "pirating" content in a better format if the creator (or rights-holder) has decided to only make it available in worse formats. If I want to feel better about supporting the creator, I can buy the worse format before doing that, but then buying a paperback that I don't want feels unethical for other (environmental) reasons.

If someone subscribes to HBO Max for a month and then watches a better pirated copy, I have a hard time finding a problem with anyone but HBO there. If anything, paying HBO for their screwed up version is an issue because it encourages them to keep screwing things up like that.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#39

Post by codyb »

me_me_me wrote: post #26
chadash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale?... (Offline-only distribution would count as “abandoned” in this regime.) Let's say I author a book and sell it as a paperback, but decide for whatever reason that I don't want to sell an e-book. Would you apply the same reasoning there? Is it ethical for you to torrent an unpaid for e-book copy because you've decided that's more convenient…

Ethics? I don't care too much if mouse company gets more money for their empire from me or not. Lets be real, that money more less goes to people that have nothing to do with people that create shows/content etc. But thats beside the point, I don't care much about it. I am adult, I earn money and at this point in my life my time IS worth money. If the effort/cost of watching a show it greater than firing up torrents,…

"Ethical/lawful or not I don't care" -me_me_me

Parody? I'm not sure.

Seems like an attitude I'm relatively happy isn't super common in society.

If I make a book, I don't "owe you an effort" just cause you don't want to make it available in a format you'd like to consume.

And that doesn't give you the right to steal it from me.

Now certainly everyone should live under a set of guidelines, no one should be certain efforts that do need to be made, say for accessibility reasons, and we do that as a society for a common good.

But if you want to use Betamax and it's going to be expensive for me to support it, I don't owe you that. And it doesn't make it okay for you to just take my work because you will only use your own format.

Edit: Also... small creators things get stolen constantly on the internet. It's a big problem for a lot of content creators and probably discourages people from making more art.

Re: HBO Max is failing the classic Tom and Jerry

#40

Post by jfk13 »

wlesieutre wrote: post #38
chadash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, what’s the ethical issue with pirating content that is not for sale?... (Offline-only distribution would count as “abandoned” in this regime.) Let's say I author a book and sell it as a paperback, but decide for whatever reason that I don't want to sell an e-book. Would you apply the same reasoning there? Is it ethical for you to torrent an unpaid for e-book copy because you've decided that's more convenient…

Is it ethical to sell a paperback and not an ebook in 2021 knowing that you're making it inaccessible to people who need larger font sizes to read it? Ebook readers are great for book accessibility, but if someone won't sell you an ebook it doesn't do much good. EDIT - I forgot to get to my point, which is that I have no ethical issue with "pirating" content in a better format if the creator (or rights-holder) has de…

Is it ethical to sell a paperback book and an ebook in 2021 and not provide a braille version, knowing that you're making it inaccessible to the blind?
Post reply on HN