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

Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

nofilmschool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 479 posts

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#191

Post by ubermonkey »

It's weird to realize that there's a huge difference in how people who read HN understood "digital buying" and how the rest of the world did.

I have bought many movies and TV shows from the iTunes store. I did so knowing that it was not a true purchase in the sense of buying a DVD, or a videotape, or a book, or even in the sense of buying music from the iTunes store (which has been DRM-free since 2009). But I did it anyway, because the transaction still offered a net positive value for me:

- Very long term (but clearly not perpetual) rights to watch the thing; - Very high convenience (easily available on my Apple devices without dealing with files or sync); - Very much easier/simpler than resorting to, shall we say, nontraditional means of media procurement.

But, again, we knew what was happening. Apple could turn heel and invalidate these purchases on their whim, or the whim of the rightsholder. I still made the deal, and still feel fine about it, because I knew that going in. Normal humans tend not to understand this.

(We also have a very minimal cable package. We did the math and realized that it was cheaper to, say, buy season passes of the mid-tier cable shows we wanted to see than it was to pay for the channels in question. If you watch a LOT of those shows, this math doesn't work, but for us and things like Mad Men, it definitely did. Our cable bill is $50 a month lower than it would be if we had those channels, so we could absolutely justify "buying" the show on iTunes -- even if we had no plans to watch it more than once.)

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#193

Post by don-code »

saurik wrote: post #162
lrvick wrote: post #57

Physical media lets you have privacy without logging when you watch media, what media you consume, how many times you consume it, or how long you consume it. You can enjoy it offline, and in 20 years long after the studio that licensed it is gone. You can give it to a friend or loan it out. Or sell it. It is yours. Meanwhile DRM media we pay full price for, or if the content is only available via streaming we pay for…

FWIW, there is some subtlety here with respect to "physical media", as something that otherwise looks like physical media can still have DRM annoying enough that you might not be able to have a functional player when you go to use your media 20 years later (particularly if your console has Internet access).

Case in point: Terminator 2 Extreme, purchased in 2003. I figured that having the physical media meant I could play this forever long as I owned the discs.

I haven't been able to play those discs since 2008, when the license servers went offline.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#194

Post by ghaff »

ademup wrote: post #187
ghaff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be somewhat skeptical of the convenience claim. A former colleague argued that the attraction of Napster was more about convenience than price which I didn't really buy. But if we look at the popularity of streaming services today versus owning even DRM-free music, that would seem to support the convenience theory. (It hasn't taken off for books to the same degree but I'd guess that's in part because the va…

Owning music is made much more difficult now that the ability to use it has been greatly diminished. Many new cars don't even come with CD players. Sure, there are work arounds, but I think that moves us beyond a measure of "convenience".

>>the ability to use it has been greatly diminished

Really? I have tons of music ripped from CDs on my iPhone and I can trivially play that in my car. I have CD players in my car (which I never use) and attached to my stereo (which I rarely use). It's not that the ability to play CDs (or rip them and play them) has been diminished but a lot of people prefer to just use a streaming service.

I'll grant that many people don't have a CD player even on their computer any longer but you can buy one for not much money online and have it in a couple days if you want one.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#195

Post by jsjohnst »

elliekelly wrote: post #177
eplanit wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. I've returned to buying only physical media -- haven't purchased an online format for 6 months+. I agree, we got played. About a year ago, Amazon changed the verbiage on the ui from "you own this movie" to "you purchased this movie". That was my clue and trigger to change.

This reminds me of the widespread move to change from “private message” to “direct message” on platforms like facebook and twitter. A subtle hint in the UI as to how things really work.

Twitter has always, to my knowledge, called them DMs. I’ve always hated FB messaging, despite using it out of necessity occasionally, so I can’t speak to if/when the naming scheme changed there. That said, a bunch of smaller messaging sites made that shift, so your core point is valid, I just think you overshot with your examples potentially.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#196

Post by danpalmer »

fighterpilot wrote: post #52
hyperman1 wrote: post #13

This seams the core of Apple's defence: Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items. This strikes at the root of our society's definition of ownership. Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court. This should be ens…

> Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely Pretty sure that many people would be led to believe that.

As there's no physical degradation of a storage medium associated with a hosted service, I'd expect a service to be able to remain longer that a physical copy I purchase.

If that doesn't happen that's down to the business interests of the seller and those are not something consumers typically have to account for when buying media.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#197

Post by amelius »

lrvick wrote: post #57

Physical media lets you have privacy without logging when you watch media, what media you consume, how many times you consume it, or how long you consume it. You can enjoy it offline, and in 20 years long after the studio that licensed it is gone. You can give it to a friend or loan it out. Or sell it. It is yours. Meanwhile DRM media we pay full price for, or if the content is only available via streaming we pay for…

> We got scammed.

This is what happens when a technology enters the mainstream.

Average people don't care about the same things that tech-people care about.

See eternal September as another example.

Eventually the market always serves the "average" client best, and the more demanding people (which are usually the early adopters of a technology) aren't served so well.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#199

Post by borepop »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #190
lrvick wrote: post #57

Physical media lets you have privacy without logging when you watch media, what media you consume, how many times you consume it, or how long you consume it. You can enjoy it offline, and in 20 years long after the studio that licensed it is gone. You can give it to a friend or loan it out. Or sell it. It is yours. Meanwhile DRM media we pay full price for, or if the content is only available via streaming we pay for…

I typed a big long response and deleted it because I think that people just do not care.

I relate to this energy.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#200

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

moviuro wrote: post #179
lrvick wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-made-cyberpunk-2077-playable-...

By adding yet another indirection. Compiling the binaries for Linux and just shipping it with a fat "no warranty" label on top would have been 100x better. Even Linux distros do that (GPL: `THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.`)

You want them to sell their product with a "if it doesn't work it's not our problem" label? I'm sure there are consumer protection laws against that.
Post reply on HN