Live data from Hacker News

The deception of “buying” digital movies

worldofmatthew.com

371–380 of 565 posts

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In a way, Mickey Mouse is under both copyright and trademark. If someone wanted to do "The New Stories of Mickey Mouse" they should be free to do so. If someone wanted to act as Disney using Micky Mouse, then they should be sued into oblivion for acting as another company.

That's a fair compromise. Original author owns the rights to a given piece of art in whole and trademark from title, so they can profit off their work and make next title without being mistaken for someone else.

Everyone else is free to do with IP, do remixes etc. and if they make something with original IP that is better than originals, so be it ,competition actually working.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

10-year extensions with graduated costs. You get first 10 years upon publication, for free automatically, or for a nominal filing fee to register your claim. The next 10 years costs (extending to 20 total) now costs a meaningful fee. Maybe a fraction of sales structured like a license owned by the public/government, maybe a known schedule of fees based on the type of work, but either way it is a non-trivial sum. Then…

That's even more corporation favoured. It's much easier to stomach the price as corporation than author...

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#373
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the best example to work with is Star Wars, or maybe The Lord of the Rings. The harm of eternal copyright is probably best demonstrated with these. They've both entered popular understanding, becoming casually referenced all over the place. "We need to make a little stop in Mordor first" is probably more widely-understood than most references to Greek mythology at this point. The people who grew up in the cul…

Lord of the Rings drinks from European mythology, and Star Wars toke more than a few clues from a particular film of Kurosawa. Both evolved in interesting histories, innovated a lot and add their own work and merit, of course. This happened in part because they were not sued by former authors.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#374
post #7

One under-appreciated limitation on digital movies is geographic restrictions. You buy a bunch of iTunes movies in Canada, then move to the USA, and you no longer have the right to watch them anymore due to licensing. Another significant issue with digital movies and games is the inability to resell the content once you're done with it. You can sell your DVDs at a yard sale or on eBay but not your iTunes movies. IMO,…

> Another significant issue with digital movies and games is the inability to resell the content once you're done with it.

Which, as I've recently noticed, in turn has the interesting (and from the consumer point of view somewhat unfortunate) side effect that if a particular online release is pulled from distribution, it becomes completely unavailable (at least through legal channels) from one moment to the next.

Whereas with physical media first of all being pulled from distribution doesn't automatically mean that all existing stock in all stores worldwide is being recalled (it can happen, but the process is not as intrinsically linked as it is with digital distribution), and secondly in any case there's always the second hand market to completely legally fall back to, so the onset of unavailability is a more gradual process, especially for more popular media where there's a sizeable second hand market offering available.

With digital media on the other hand you more or less immediately have to fall back to under-the-table sources if that happens…

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#375
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably around 7-10 years, which is the time limit it originally had. Copyright is meant to be a "public pact" to encourage creation and innovation. But think about that goal for a minute. It doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to create one awesome thing once and then benefit from it for life as a rent-seeking fat cat. Instead, it should give you a reasonable amount of time to benefit from the fruits of it,…

You're dead-on-arrival. I vouched cause it was a respectful answer. You probably should abandon this account and create a new one that isn't "dead" on post. -------------- > Probably around 7-10 years, which is the time limit it originally had. Samuel Clemens stated that if copyright was shortened to this long or shorter, then he would not issue books. Instead he'd public chapters as to restart the clock for each. An…

(It is interesting, as if you go back, mtgx has been banned since 2019 because of a "personal attack" on Carmack 100% is NOT personal and that, supposedly, their views are "predictable", which, if applied fairly, would get most of us banned as we are all broken records ;P.)

Regardless, that copyright was 7-10 years originally is close but not quite right in a way that matters: it was 14 years with the ability to request a 14 year extension. (This being the same in the US law which came much later, but was originally from the Statute of Anne in the UK.)

So like, 10 is close enough to 14 and yet, not only do those 4 years feel (to me) like they matter a lot, it is arguably 28, and 7 is definitely underselling the protection they were being granted. That said, it also only applied (in the US) to books, maps, and charts, so in some sense wasn't even the same, broad concept.

The discussion of how long over time is interesting as, in a very real sense, our ability to monetize copyright quickly has increased: the Internet lets you immediately address a nationwide market, while it easily could have taken decades with nothing but (expensive to use) printing presses making materials to distribute around using (slow) horses and (for even wider distribution) boats.

These days, I almost get the impression that a lot of media companies try to make the vast majority of money off of something in the first few MONTHS and then nigh-unto discard it entirely--not even bothering to finish things for later syndication--while they move on to new content and new IP.

They are then occasionally mining their old catalogs of IP to do like, a "reboot", but I frankly feel like no one would stop making content if they lost the ability to later do that, and I also doubt that the original creators are being compensated much for that later possibility (as it is so hit and miss).

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#376

I have started a modest Blu-Ray/4k Blu-Ray collection. For me, it is by far the best movie experience I've had with any format. It takes maybe 90 vs 20 seconds to get the movie playing, but in return I get noticeably better quality. 4k Blu-Rays' bitrates are around 128 Mb/s. For comparison, Netflix tops out around 17 Mb/s. It really does look and sound noticeably better if you have the TV and surround setup to take a…

Do you have to watch these non-skippable FBI warnings?

The worst part is that the old “stop stop play” trick doesn’t work on any devices I have that can play disks (Xbox and computers). Every time I play a disk and hit the unskippable nonsense, I’m reminded why nobody uses those things anymore.

If you have a stand alone player, however, perhaps that trick still works. Just press stop, then press stop again, then press play. It skips the warnings, pre roll stuff, menus, and just plays the movie.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#377
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Wars is a particularly salient example because the original cuts that made the films such cultural icons are completely unavailable from anyone other than third‐party sellers, due to the wishes of the (former) rights holder. After the Special Editions were released, the theatrical editions made it onto DVD one time, and never did again. J.J. Abrams has indicated that there are difficulties behind the scenes (per…

You may have avoided mentioning this on purpose, but I'll go for it. The "Despecialized Editions" [1] of the original Star Wars trilogy are an amazing project to take the HD special editions and edit out all of the changes to match the theatrical edition. They look a lot better than the scans I've seen, but still match the old VHS box set I grew up watching. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy's_Despecialized_Edi…

Another project to fully restore the original Star Wars trilogy is 4K77/4K80/4K83 [1]

[1] https://www.thestarwarstrilogy.com/

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the US have any state or federal laws that don't benefit the wealthy at least as much as a regular citizen? As far as I'm aware, even laws for the small business play into the favor of larger corporations either directly or via auxiliary laws.

Food safety laws are a good example. By acting as a floor on manufacturer and restaurant hygiene and ingredient quality, they help the poor a fair bit more than the rich.

Compliance with those laws help big ag and Starbucks WAY more than small farmers and small cafes, and pose barriers to entry.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I buy a concert ticket. Does this mean I can go see that artist everywhere they perform forever now? This is a bad analogy. A better one would be, your bought a car from me, and three years from now, I tow your car away and do not compensate you for taking the car. Because buyer beware, caveat emptor, etc...

What part of a streaming movie is a physical item? It is even further removed and a worse analogy than my concert ticket is like a streaming movie license. With one you physically have a few thousand-pound piece of metal in your garage with a title from the government of ownership, the other you have a limited license on an account maintained by the service provider. If you "buy" a car, and don't get a title, then ye…

> What part of a streaming movie is a physical item?

The issue is telling someone this:

Rent ($2.99) Rent HD ($3.99) Buy ($13.99)

So I pick buy, and it sure looks like I own it because the other two choices were presented as rentals. The buy option really is a "long term rental" and should have a very easy to read disclaimer under it that says: "Buy access until 12/31/2029". That way the consumer does not conclude it is a purchase, like a DVD or VHS that I own until it wears out, or forever, whichever comes first.

> If you "buy" a car, and don't get a title, then yeah sure I guess the title holder can take it away. You didn't own it; you never had the title for it.

I bought my car with a loan. I did get a copy of the title, with the lien-holder listed on the back. The car is mine, but I cannot sell it without the lien-holder releasing the lien. Legally, I do own the car. It is very much mine. If I fail to make payments, the lien holder may go to court, and the court can allow them to reposes (note the "re" in reposes) the vehicle.

Presenting something as "buy" when it is really "rent" is unethical at best, and illegal at worst, and it needs to be litigated now.

Post reply on HN