Live data from Hacker News

The deception of “buying” digital movies

worldofmatthew.com

281–290 of 565 posts

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#281
post #215

Copyright, as it exists in the 21st century, is a scam. It does not protect the artists, the creative works, or the little guy. It is a product of decades' worth of lobbying by very rich and powerful organizations and megacorps. I'm not against the idea of a copyright. An artist has the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and creative works do have value. However, the original idea of copyright has been bent, b…

What do you think a reasonable form of copyright law would look like?

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#283
post #215

Copyright, as it exists in the 21st century, is a scam. It does not protect the artists, the creative works, or the little guy. It is a product of decades' worth of lobbying by very rich and powerful organizations and megacorps. I'm not against the idea of a copyright. An artist has the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and creative works do have value. However, the original idea of copyright has been bent, b…

This is precisely why those laboring under the misapprehension that the same mechanism used for this can somehow be used by them to make things more "fair" are, at best, delusional. The results will always be "more fair" only to a certain group; moreover, that group will always exist in some form or other, as precisely such has always been the actual outcome of any fascist/mercantilist/communist system: only the name and presumed principles vary, but the effective outcome is always the same and always toxic to the rest of society.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#284
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it could possibly mean to suggest knowledge is or isn't a thing?

I think it means that knowledge and material things are quite different. For example, a material thing cannot be duplicated a million times in a second. Or transmitted a million miles in an eyeblink. And knowledge has no mass. We could probably draw a bunch of other distinctions too.

I didn't get the impression that the parent was offering such anodyne observations, to be honest.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#285

I don't use any paid streaming services, so forgive me if I'm saying something stupid, but doesn't this: >Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service mean that you can download a copy of the content you bought? As far as I'm concerned, that's about as close to "owning" as it gets, when it comes to digital media. If you buy, say, a pair of pliers…

For your analogy to be correct, it's not that you chose not to take the pliers home, but that the hardware store won't let you.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you are sold the concert ticket you know you are buying it to only view at the one specific time and location. Do I know this? Are you assuming I bothered to read the ticket ahead of time? I bought a ticket to the Red Hot Chili Peppers 2022 Tour. I should be able to go to all the tour, right? Oh wait, you're telling me there's text on the ticket I should have read to understand it was only for one location and…

Arguing that reading anything, even small amounts of information located directly on the ticket or receipt, is "legalese" is very reductive and seems to be coming from an emotional rather than logical argument. Event tickets are an established practice that is very familiar and straightforward to consumers and as another commenter mentioned is a false equivalence for several reasons. There is an actual legal concept…

I want to watch Top Gun: Maverick. I go to the Amazon Store page.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0B213HG4N/ref=atv_hm...

I see "By ordering or viewing, you agree to our Terms[link to terms]" Huh maybe I should look at what I'm buying before I click checkout.

https://www.primevideo.com/help?nodeId=202095490&view-type=c...

Hmm, what's relevant to this. Ah, Digital Content, generally.

The Service may allow you to: (i) ignoring subscription talk (ii) ignoring rental talk (iii) purchase Digital Content for on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time ("Purchased Digital Content")

So obviously even "buying" the movie only gives it to me for an indefinite period of time. I wonder when it might not become available then. Let's scan more section headers to see if it talks about that.

i. Availability of Purchased Digital Content. Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions or for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming.

I don't get how this is an "undue burden" to read this before forking over $14. It is not fine print, the default styles render it pretty clearly on my screen but you can feel free to resize it to render however you wish. Its not a long document. It has obvious sections. The link to this document was a few pixels away from the Buy button on my screen and was easily visible. It took me less than a minute to understand what I would be buying if I clicked "Buy". They're not hiding this away behind some far away unrelated site or only giving you this after requesting it by mail with legal letterhead. This is pretty out there and open.

To me, suggesting that people can't read this might as well be the same as arguing people shouldn't be required to read what's on the face of a ticket. The information is right there, it is not hidden in the slightest.

> Event tickets are an established practice

Maybe to you, but maybe I've never bought one before.

If you're going by "event tickets have been sold for a while", well, so have digital movies with DRM that can make them unavailable. This isn't something that just came out this year, I bought a movie from Amazon Unbox sixteen years ago which had these limitations. How long does it have to exist before it is an "established practice"?

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#288
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you handle the storage for this? One bluray disk is about 60gb. I'm not sure if movies typically take 60gb but if you watch TV shows they do. 15 disks is 1TB. In a short while you're running a data center, especially if you collect a lot of video content. I've heard that you can get efficient re-encodings, but that typically means torrenting it from somewhere. I'm not aware of a way to make high quality re-enc…

Handbrake, chose a profile, use a script, use a more efficient codec. Doesn’t take much manual work but computer chugs for a while.

Does handbrake presets give you good space savings? I was imagining at most something in the 10-20% range.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy blurays, rip them and then store them on a NAS to play back via Plex. Much, much better quality than any stream from Netflix et al.

I thought about doing this, but I was worried about codec compatibility issues with Dolby Vision and Atmos, and DTS:whatever. Everything I've read says you need to buy an Nvidia Shield to do it right. This is probably even closer to ideal than my setup, but in the end I decided it's not worth the effort/cost vs just putting the disc in the player.

An Apple TV 4K with Infuse app does all of this without problems and supports many kinds of storage backends.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#290
post #215

Copyright, as it exists in the 21st century, is a scam. It does not protect the artists, the creative works, or the little guy. It is a product of decades' worth of lobbying by very rich and powerful organizations and megacorps. I'm not against the idea of a copyright. An artist has the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and creative works do have value. However, the original idea of copyright has been bent, b…

Copyright law was created by and exclusively for lawyers and the oligarchs who can afford them on retainer. Just look at what Disney has done to us and you'll lose all sympathy for the mouse: https://i.imgur.com/58gB0hq.jpg

on the other hand, I don't think Mickey should go public domain.
Post reply on HN