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

361–370 of 479 posts

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

#361

Post by fsflover »

Fnoord wrote: post #229
fsflover wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM-free media stores: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/ (scroll down).

DRM isn't the only problem. Watermarks are as well, they ruin the sound quality. Its a bit disappointing FSF doesn't mention Fairphone, as they offer a smartphone made from slave-free labour (Librem 5 isn't).

Fairphone relies on Qualcomm, which forces planned obsolescence through proprietary software [0]. This is why FSF do not recommend it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26593274

Consider Librem 5 USA instead: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa. It is produced in USA.

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

#362

Post by jollybean »

senko wrote: post #6

I've seen the phrase "Own it in {HD/BluRay/4K}" so many times and always cringe. You're just owning a limited license ( extremely limited, in the case of digital goods) to watch. The average HN user can spot the difference and say "of course you don't own it, and in case of streaming, you only have access for as long as the service is around", but that's not what the average consumer sees. "Buy" and "own" have very s…

I don't think this is the interpretation of people's expectations.

"Own it on BluRay" I think is very well understood by the vast majority of the commons and probably even those on HN. They own that BluRay and their 'rights' are confined but within expectation.

I don't think people have the expectation to "Start Broadcasting and Putting Ads in Brad Pitt's New Film".

They can however, spin up their BluRay in 30 years and watch the movie, which is fair.

I suggest the case against Apple has a kind of merit as well, if people 'own it' they should be able to watch it whenever they want, even 10 years from now, which is not a very long time.

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

#363

Post by irrational »

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…

Has Apple been attending the Fox News School of Rationalization? No reasonable viewer would believe that Tucker Carlson is News.

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

#364

Post by irrational »

datavirtue wrote: post #288
BruiseLee wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually that is correct in many countries (including US). After a period of inactivity (typically 3-5 years) the bank is required to turn over the money from inactive accounts to the state. This process is called escheatment. I'm not joking.

That is a protection. The government holds the money and you can apply for it anytime. As can your relatives. Have you never received unclaimed funds you didn't know were due to you?

> Have you never received unclaimed funds you didn't know were due to you?

No... have you?

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

#365

Post by cblconfederate »

sergiotapia wrote: post #299
cblconfederate wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a bank marketing itself as "No reasonable consumer would believe that their deposits will remain in the bank indefinitely" This is a really awe-inspiring, a complete rejection of the concept of ownership

I'm just back to pirating shamelessly. Emby, Radarr, nzbget.

I think the future is Popcorn Time + a patron-like model

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

#366

Post by timbre1234 »

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…

Wow, I guess I'm not a reasonable person then - because that's absolutely what I believed when I hit "purchase".

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

#367

Post by wizzard »

tomc1985 wrote: post #329
lmilcin wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We got scammed. Well, depends on how you look at it and how comfortable you are forgetting about how it looked before you could buy online. I pay for convenience which is a service rather than tangible good. If I need a book for my research, I would prefer to have access to it immediately rather than wait two weeks to get it from overseas. My time is valuable and the pause on the project or inconvenience of not hav…

The convenience argument is such bullshit. We have been seduced into selling our rights down the river because we will sacrifice anything to this most pathetic of gods, Convenience. I have been fighting in this war (anti-DRM/copyleft/etc) for decades, and peoples' susceptibility to convenience has always effectively thwarted any kind of counter argument. We are fucking lazy and we should be ashamed of it. Yes I am bi…

> And now zoomers, seduced by corporate sponsorships and the cozy fiefdoms of communities like YouTube or TikTok, have almost no concept of files or their utility, of the value of owning something detached from a profiteering cloud. They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them.

You’re blaming gen z for the world they were raised in? The oldest “zoomers” are about 25. You think they ran these companies for the last 20 years and made the decisions that got us here?

They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them because there is no other choice. Nobody actually wants this.

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

#368

Post by frankish »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #224
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.

An interesting exception - it is still Audible's policy to say you keep everything you've bought if you decide to cancel a subscription. This still ties those books to their app but it seems like the best we can hope for given the alternative choice. There have been at various times scripts found on GitHub, BitBucket and the rest that will convert the files to MP3, effectively breaking out of the DRM, but this has be…

I highly recommend https://libro.fm/ as an alternative.

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

#369

Post by cabaalis »

irrational wrote: post #364
datavirtue wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a protection. The government holds the money and you can apply for it anytime. As can your relatives. Have you never received unclaimed funds you didn't know were due to you?

> Have you never received unclaimed funds you didn't know were due to you? No... have you?

Happens all the time. They even used to publish lists of unclaimed funds in the paper. It's occurred to me twice in my lifetime.

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

#370

Post by amelius »

soneil wrote: post #63
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…

While I personally agree, ownership should be explicit - their defence isn't as silly as it looks. "reasonable belief" is an actual mechanism in english law (the system, not the nation), and the learned behaviours of "buy it on Kindle", "buy it on Steam", etc, do support it. It's essentially the "times have changed" argument; that the common nomenclature for "purchase a non-exclusive license with no fixed term" is "b…

Sadly, the vast majority of consumers totally expects to be ripped off in one way or another. So, yes indeed.
Post reply on HN