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

The case for physical media ownership

dervis.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#171

Post by autoexec »

nik282000 wrote: post #148
altern8 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true, I pirated movies that I was ready to pay for so many times, just because they weren't available in my area, or there were no subtitles, or they only offered 720p. You can download a MTK file at 4K with multiple audio tracks and subtitles and more often than not there are enough seeders to just start watching it while it downloads in the background. They need to wake up.

Despite paying for Netflix and Disney+ and Prime and etc, I have pirtated 1080 copies, with subtitles, of all our favorites because network access is unreliable and service provides add and remove media without warning. As has been said before, the pirated copies are frequently a higher quality product than is available for purchase or rent.

Disney+ is notorious for this. Disney also has a number of shows that they refuse to provide on physical media. If they are removed from their platform and not licensed elsewhere they effectively become lost media.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#172

Post by ripe »

Since I don't see it mentioned yet in the comments:

In 2011, movie studios created a digital ownership service called Ultraviolet. You could own titles in your "UltraViolet Digital Rights Locker" and access them from multiple devices via third-party streaming services. [1]

"The UltraViolet Digital Rights Locker will keep track of all of the consumers’ UltraViolet digital purchases, whether they bought a movie or television show on Blu-ray disc or digital download. UltraViolet does not store the actual content. When a consumer logs in, UltraViolet will verify that the consumer has purchased a film, and will then allow the consumer to stream or download their movies from a participating UltraViolet service." [2]

This was an attempt to separate the technology of streaming from the legal ownership of the asset.

But Disney never signed on, and the member studios eventually got tired of it for some reason. The whole service was shut down in 2019.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraViolet_(website)

[2] Interview with CTO Mitch Singer, https://web.archive.org/web/20110717234132/http://www.homeme...

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#173

Post by jolmg »

Tangential, but a few days ago I started some Steam games I hadn't played in some years. I was surprised to be met with updated user agreements, which I had to agree to if I wanted to play the games I bought years ago. These were all single-player games.

> If you can't hold it, you don't own it.

Didn't some game consoles require online connectivity to play even games in physical media?[1]

It's possible for a game disc to require connecting online and forcing updates or even just updated licensing agreements.

Correct bright line might be to be able to permanently use it without online connectivity.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSupport/comments/1682s60/commen...

> So just to be clear, most games now are not actually on the disc. Most discs just contain a license that tells the store it's okay to download this game. It is Very rare that you can just put in a disc and play these days regardless of if it is on Playstation or xbox but it does still happen.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#174

Post by autoexec »

ryandrake wrote: post #82
blfr wrote: post #3

Just pirate it. They can't tell you this but there's a quagmire of rights, licenses, agreements, treaties... and you can untangle this Goridan Knot by just pirating, especially media, for your own use. There are pixel perfect 4k drm-free rips out there made by people who poured thousands of hours into understanding codecs. They will work on any platform, forever, you can stream them or play offline. These rips can be…

Another thing that always needs pointing out: that ad-free, copyable, unencumbered, pixel perfect 4K drm-free rip with multiple language audio streams, hand crafted accurate subtitles, chapter tags, and embedded poster art cannot be bought from the movie industry at any price. That's why piracy is a product problem, not a price problem. The industry refuses to produce and offer the superior product, so regardless of…

Pirated media also can't be silently and remotely censored or edited. It's also increasingly the only way to consume media where somewhere somebody isn't keeping a highly detailed record of every time you access it (when, where, how long, how often, etc.).

You can't even watch a DVD or bluray these days without a record of what you're watching and when being stored and sent over the internet. Companies like Roku are doing multiple screencaptures every second and uploading those to content recognition systems.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#175

Post by wilg »

alt227 wrote: post #168
wilg wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually have to support the creators however THEY want if you want access, not however YOU want. I suspect you're not actually supporting all the creators of the things you watch via piracy!

Creators are often happy that their art is being watched regardless of the source and whether they are making money from it. https://www.screendaily.com/news/piracy-is-the-most-successf... Its the money behind them that cares about restricting access to bleed every penny they can out of it.

That’s an excuse, not universally applicable, and not even well supported by your own link.

> Herzog continued. “I don’t like it because I would like to earn some money with my films. But if someone like you steals my films through the internet or whatever, fine, you have my blessing.

He’d rather you didn’t. And I bet you’re not checking every artist. Just be honest and say you don’t want to pay, don’t act like you’re Robin Hood.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#176

Post by autoexec »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #81
cube00 wrote: post #26

Sony's one sentence notice is pretty grim considering how much money they made from these sales (sorry licensing). From September 1, 2026, due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library. Thank you, PlayStation Store [1] At least in 2023 it was two sentences and then they somehow negotiate…

> due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content So when they 'sold' the content, they were already aware that they were selling something with an expiry date. Why would you even agree to a license to resell something with a time limit? There should be some kind of law that says that any license agreement intended for reselling to the public should be a…

The same with movies, TV shows, and video games using licensed music. If you agree to let a song be in a work you should expect that song to be in that work forever. I'm tired of media never seeing the light of day because of the expense of re-licensing the music or even having it re-released but with all the music removed or replaced by generic tracks.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#177

Post by autoexec »

alt227 wrote: post #167
cube00 wrote: post #26

Sony's one sentence notice is pretty grim considering how much money they made from these sales (sorry licensing). From September 1, 2026, due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library. Thank you, PlayStation Store [1] At least in 2023 it was two sentences and then they somehow negotiate…

Why isn't there a class action lawsuit from all the people who bought studio canal content on the Playstation store and now cannot watch it?

Learned helplessness? Maybe I'm wrong and it'll still happen. I'm sure that everyone who got screwed after buying those movies would love waiting years to eventually get a coupon code for the playstation store while lawyers rake in millions though.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#178

Post by rolph »

folkrav wrote: post #65
enos_feedler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why were you watching movies when you should have been setting up your apartment

Are you pretending like you just unpack non-stop for days whenever you move?

get the box that says kitchen, bring it into the kitchen turn it upside down, because the bottom is where you find all the things you put in first, the things most often used. basically flip the stack so that its now FIFO.

as you use a required item return it not to the packing box, but to the drawer shelf place your muscle memory prompts.

access initiated procedural unpacking !

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#179

Post by autoexec »

nik282000 wrote: post #155
Henchman21 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an ex-Sony employee, that is deeply held cultural belief: Sony doesn’t do anything wrong . It is absolutely a fuck you.

It drives me nuts that Sony makes some of the absolute best cameras on the market while being douche canoes in every other aspect. Bambu Labs has definitely taken that lesson to heart in producing great hardware that crushes consumer rights.

Disney is the same way. They hire some of the most talented and creative people on Earth to make wonderful works of art and then act like complete assholes in every other aspect of their business.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#180

Post by largbae »

This is a wonderful collection. Portions of this, especially subscription bits, apply to SaaS and AI as it is currently served. Maybe now that B2B relationships have similar risks, more lobbying pressure will come on the side of permanent access to the things we buy.
Post reply on HN