Amazon deleted my Final Space digital purchases of season 1 and 2(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Amazon deleted my Final Space digital purchases of season 1 and 2
https://twitter.com/PixelatedWah/status/1574924613456343041
189 comments
In Europe you can vote for the Pirate Party in several countries, including for European parliament.
There are problems with such parties at the local level because it's hard to unite on other issues, but at the EU level, the Pirate Party representatives consistently have presented (in my view), the most technically correct interpretations of internet laws and regulations for example, all the topics around data privacy, etc. They are not "hurr durr I wanna get free stuff" at all, and most other representatives remind me of my grandpa that had no clue what a computer even was.
To me, donating and voting for people who are technically correct is a way better way to effect change than just trying to have some mass coordination around piracy / boicots, those never work.
Outside of Europe I have no idea what something effective would be. Unfortunately the patent / copyright apparatus is very very strong and the political pressure US groups put on the world is very hard to combat.
A good book about the subject of patents and this apparatus and how they basically muscled the world into abidding to US lobbies, including massively fucking poor countries with respect to pharmaceutical patents is "Information Feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy?" https://thenewpress.com/books/information-feudalism
There are problems with such parties at the local level because it's hard to unite on other issues, but at the EU level, the Pirate Party representatives consistently have presented (in my view), the most technically correct interpretations of internet laws and regulations for example, all the topics around data privacy, etc. They are not "hurr durr I wanna get free stuff" at all, and most other representatives remind me of my grandpa that had no clue what a computer even was.
To me, donating and voting for people who are technically correct is a way better way to effect change than just trying to have some mass coordination around piracy / boicots, those never work.
Outside of Europe I have no idea what something effective would be. Unfortunately the patent / copyright apparatus is very very strong and the political pressure US groups put on the world is very hard to combat.
A good book about the subject of patents and this apparatus and how they basically muscled the world into abidding to US lobbies, including massively fucking poor countries with respect to pharmaceutical patents is "Information Feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy?" https://thenewpress.com/books/information-feudalism
US pirates https://uspirates.org
> The only way I see this changing anytime is through a massive cultural shift
Solutions like that or, "if everyone would just _", or "everybody needs to _" will never happen. Just my own rule of thumb.
Solutions like that or, "if everyone would just _", or "everybody needs to _" will never happen. Just my own rule of thumb.
Never? Like universal suffrage, civil rights, (mostly universal) education, the Montreal Protocol, seatbelts, airbags, anti-lock braking.
Nah, you know what, forget it, give up, shits fucked and people are dumb. /s
Edit to add: unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, emmision standards, one third of owner-occupied homes in Australia have rooftop solar, the widespread acceptance of anthropogenic induced climate drivers.
Nah, you know what, forget it, give up, shits fucked and people are dumb. /s
Edit to add: unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, emmision standards, one third of owner-occupied homes in Australia have rooftop solar, the widespread acceptance of anthropogenic induced climate drivers.
You're talking about issues solved either through a critical mass of people wanting change or legislation. I'm not saying do nothing.
They're the same thing.
Cristal mass is "if everyone would just".
Legislation largely works because those subject to it largely agree to abide.
If everyone would just agree to stop using the old thing / start doing the new thing.
Cristal mass is "if everyone would just".
Legislation largely works because those subject to it largely agree to abide.
If everyone would just agree to stop using the old thing / start doing the new thing.
I'm not following. Everyone agrees that smart (surveillance) TVs suck but nobody is willing to take their money elsewhere. I'm the only person, in my social circle, who cares about this issue. How do we get to a critical mass of people when we are starting from essentially 0?
I think it takes time.
I think it takes time.
Critical mass is "if enough people would just"
Other stuff, like communism, really requires "if everybody would just". An arbitrarily small number of defectors will make the system tip towards collapse.
Other stuff, like communism, really requires "if everybody would just". An arbitrarily small number of defectors will make the system tip towards collapse.
Concrete solution is an HDMI adapter splice that can record to a USB drive whatever passes through it
This may not always work, data going through HDMI is frequently encrypted. If you try to capture the data between a Blu-ray drive and a TV (for example), it will be encrypted.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that you can get cheap Chinese HDMI splitters that strip the encryption.
I would think it has to be relatively easy to decrypt given that the Blu-Ray player has to either send a decryption key to the TV via the HDMI cable, or the TV has to already have a decryption key that could presumably be skimmed.
I would think it has to be relatively easy to decrypt given that the Blu-Ray player has to either send a decryption key to the TV via the HDMI cable, or the TV has to already have a decryption key that could presumably be skimmed.
From what I can tell the splitters essentially convince the playback device to play by relaying whatever HDCP messages the TV sends:
Since the TV obviously has the capability of decrypting the content it seems like there should be a way to split the signal somewhere between the main TV board and the display panel(s), which sounds like a big deal. Or maybe someone could make an incomplete splitter / recorder that just needs a legit Samsung board attached to it?
Playback Device (Roku etc)
|
|
Splitter ------ Unauthorized Player (Recorder)
|
|
Authorized Player (TV)
Since the TV obviously has the capability of decrypting the content it seems like there should be a way to split the signal somewhere between the main TV board and the display panel(s), which sounds like a big deal. Or maybe someone could make an incomplete splitter / recorder that just needs a legit Samsung board attached to it?
I did a Google because I was curious, and some of them do indeed strip the HDCP.
I think what you're saying is basically what's happening. The HDMI splitter pretends to be a display/TV, so the playback device sends encrypted data to the splitter, which decrypts it and forwards the decrypted part over the HDMI connections.
From what I could find, it's usually the cheap HDMI splitters that emit unencrypted data over the HDMI ports. That kind of makes sense; they implement HDCP inbound because they have to, but they leave HDCP off the output ports because it reduces their manufacturing cost.
I think you can't just "forward" the encrypted packets, because then both outputs on the splitter would try to communicate back to the player, causing issues. The splitter has to MITM the connection.
https://www.tweaking4all.com/home-theatre/remove-hdcp-hdmi-s... has some cursory info, and links to HDMI splitters that strip HDCP (not an endorsement of whatever you do with them, just an interesting device).
I think what you're saying is basically what's happening. The HDMI splitter pretends to be a display/TV, so the playback device sends encrypted data to the splitter, which decrypts it and forwards the decrypted part over the HDMI connections.
From what I could find, it's usually the cheap HDMI splitters that emit unencrypted data over the HDMI ports. That kind of makes sense; they implement HDCP inbound because they have to, but they leave HDCP off the output ports because it reduces their manufacturing cost.
I think you can't just "forward" the encrypted packets, because then both outputs on the splitter would try to communicate back to the player, causing issues. The splitter has to MITM the connection.
https://www.tweaking4all.com/home-theatre/remove-hdcp-hdmi-s... has some cursory info, and links to HDMI splitters that strip HDCP (not an endorsement of whatever you do with them, just an interesting device).
They exist. My cheapo $20 USB HDMI capture card does it too and I can use OBS to record Blu-rays off my PS3 for example.
Is that what they used to "record" amazon, disney, etc. movies and tv shows ? I was still picturing social/computer hacking.
Although Blu-ray encryption was cracked back in 2007.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41...
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41...
That's not correct. Version 1 of their system was, they quickly fixed it to the chagrin of many Linux desktop users (who just want to play and watch the movies they paid for on the hardware they own).
So we're back to the state of you don't actually have property rights in any of the things you own or paid for.
So we're back to the state of you don't actually have property rights in any of the things you own or paid for.
bluray encryption was never "cracked". even the above link is clear that it wasn't a crack. just that the encryption mechanism was well understood, but it requires a device key to generate the volume unique key (VUK) that is necessary to decode each individual disc. VUKs can't be revoked, but they are unique to each disc (pressing). device keys can, and when they are, they can't be used to generate a VUK any longer.
so one has 2 options, a database of VUKs that others generate (don't need a device key then) or getting a device to give up its key so that one can generate VUKs onesself. The problem with this is, that that key (if made public) will then be revoked itself.
i.e. I don't consider this being cracked, this is the encryption working exactly as designed.
so one has 2 options, a database of VUKs that others generate (don't need a device key then) or getting a device to give up its key so that one can generate VUKs onesself. The problem with this is, that that key (if made public) will then be revoked itself.
i.e. I don't consider this being cracked, this is the encryption working exactly as designed.
But backdoor keys for authorities will not suffer this problem. Trust me. /s
Look at the FeinTech splitters for example. I’ve thrown everything from BRs to streaming at them and they can handle it all.
> ...teach people how to safely and effectively pirate things
> ...making piracy easy and appealing is essential
This sounds a little too naive to me. Every platform that has made significant progress towards these goals has run into massive legal opposition. And then it becomes an ever changing, moving target cat and mouse game between opposing sides. Not to mention the dangers of malware, etc lurking within sought after content - how can you guarantee safety?
I agree that copyright itself needs reform, but looking back over the last ~25 years and how big corporations have become more advanced at fighting online piracy, I don't see piracy as the central mechanism to create the big cultural shift you speak of.
> ...making piracy easy and appealing is essential
This sounds a little too naive to me. Every platform that has made significant progress towards these goals has run into massive legal opposition. And then it becomes an ever changing, moving target cat and mouse game between opposing sides. Not to mention the dangers of malware, etc lurking within sought after content - how can you guarantee safety?
I agree that copyright itself needs reform, but looking back over the last ~25 years and how big corporations have become more advanced at fighting online piracy, I don't see piracy as the central mechanism to create the big cultural shift you speak of.
US Copyright law explicitly protects your right to create backups.
but it does not protect your right to bypass any digital security mechanism to do this, or to disclose how you did this to anyone else by threat of law.
They lobbied for laws to explicitly prevent this, and given the strict constructionalist nature of the current courts, its unlikely we'll regain or be able to enforce these rights in this capacity without significant intervention by policy makers.
They lobbied for laws to explicitly prevent this, and given the strict constructionalist nature of the current courts, its unlikely we'll regain or be able to enforce these rights in this capacity without significant intervention by policy makers.
If anyone has Lexis I’d love to know if there’s any caselaw on the intersection of the right to make backups vs the anti-circumvention provisions. One could certainly argue that making a lawful backup isn’t a circumvention.
Not a lawyer, but have been curious about this before. Last I checked, format shifting is legal in Canada. Breaking even the known-broken DVD encryption, however, is illegal. We also appear to still pay a blank media tax. Considering I back up important documents to blank CDs every few months, the Music And Film Induatry of America [0] is still being paid, and so I pirate with a (relatively) clear conscience.
[0] Not the real acronym, but this one allows me to call the media conglomerates the MAFIA for a bit of a giggle
[0] Not the real acronym, but this one allows me to call the media conglomerates the MAFIA for a bit of a giggle
They plan on de-anonymizing the internet and making you have a unique id that identifies you to get on. They can then leverage that to punish you for piracy. This is the long term plan, and pretty much nothing is being done to oppose this, and many people on this site who work for big tech are working to accelerate it.
There's an even simpler solution: Prefer physical media that plays on systems that can be repaired.
You only have to buy a DVD once. There's no subscription fee. You can easily lend it, (or borrow one from the library). You don't have to download any untrusted software or learn how to configure it, and the creators still get paid.
You only have to buy a DVD once. There's no subscription fee. You can easily lend it, (or borrow one from the library). You don't have to download any untrusted software or learn how to configure it, and the creators still get paid.
Yep, this model went off the rails. Its not enough I limited to where I can consume it, you can just take it away from me. MO drives making the best noise so I am down listening it all day long.
How would you teach people to safely and effectively pirate content when you can't ensure that all participants are benign actors?
asking for a friend: what's the safe and effective way to pirate things in 2022?
you can buy physical media?
This is where I see NFT's being beneficial. Instead of 1M people spending $10 on a piece of content, they all get it for free, and 10k people spend $1k to become VIP fans with additional perks, maybe royalties on merch sales, and the ability to re-sell that VIP status.
This is IMO the most internet native way to produce content. Copyright on digital media is a legacy technology that we don't need in world where distribution is basically free and unstoppable.
This is IMO the most internet native way to produce content. Copyright on digital media is a legacy technology that we don't need in world where distribution is basically free and unstoppable.
except there's no need for blockchain to do that, if it was desired, it could be done entirely by the IP owner (think owning ultraviolet / movies anywhere rights and being able to transfer them to another account).
And then you miss all the composability with existing tools and platforms which is most of the point. It's like saying why use stripe when you could just build your own payment system.
Crazy that HN still misses that permissionless composability is the key benefit of blockchains.
Crazy that HN still misses that permissionless composability is the key benefit of blockchains.
This is often suggested on HN anytime there's some minor issue with streaming. Piracy isn't a solution to anything. Yes, there are issues with intellectual property, but most of the issues aren't with movies/TV/art. Without people paying for these things, studios won't invest vast sums of money in them and we wouldn't have the vast amount of high quality content we have today.
I feel like you're describing a huge win here. The idea that our culture needs media juggernauts for some reason is absurd. The "vast amount of quality content" I experience from day to day comes almost exclusively from small creators, creators who's content would in many cases be a hell of a lot better if it wasn't encumbered by onerous copyright laws.
Don't even get me started on how bad patents are.
Don't even get me started on how bad patents are.
I agree with you, but I wish there were more effort from big-name directors or producers to crowd fund their film or series.
Imagine for example something like the Expanse being crowd funded. That's about $3.5 - $5 MM per episode - a huge amount. And then it takes a year or more to see the content. And the Expanse wasn't really that expensive in the scale of things.
Unfortunately, until a better model emerges, the media juggernauts do serve a function in the marketplace as financiers.
Imagine for example something like the Expanse being crowd funded. That's about $3.5 - $5 MM per episode - a huge amount. And then it takes a year or more to see the content. And the Expanse wasn't really that expensive in the scale of things.
Unfortunately, until a better model emerges, the media juggernauts do serve a function in the marketplace as financiers.
By now, I figured we'd have a lot more visual media being 100% CGI. That would have allowed small creators to ride the collapsing cost of hardware.
You're probably pushing more triangles in ten seconds of a modern video game at 4K than in the entire run of Babylon 5's groundbreaking CGI usage. So we've definitely got the resources available to deliver broadcast-quality CGI video to the masses, and the right tooling could make it accessible.
I could imagine franchises that started with modest visuals, and if they can find bigger backers (more subscribers, advertisers, merchandising, whatever), they can level up with more resources behind them.
I also imagined that studios and directors would love the idea of CGI actors-- you could do things that are still infeasible with practical effects, you can pull them back out 10 years later and they haven't aged, and you don't need to worry that they'll suddenly go on a binge that effects their ability to film.
You're probably pushing more triangles in ten seconds of a modern video game at 4K than in the entire run of Babylon 5's groundbreaking CGI usage. So we've definitely got the resources available to deliver broadcast-quality CGI video to the masses, and the right tooling could make it accessible.
I could imagine franchises that started with modest visuals, and if they can find bigger backers (more subscribers, advertisers, merchandising, whatever), they can level up with more resources behind them.
I also imagined that studios and directors would love the idea of CGI actors-- you could do things that are still infeasible with practical effects, you can pull them back out 10 years later and they haven't aged, and you don't need to worry that they'll suddenly go on a binge that effects their ability to film.
Copyright laws protect small creators too. I'm not sure how they could expect to make a living if their work could just be copied and sold or given away by anyone.
> Copyright laws protect small creators too. I'm not sure how they could expect to make a living if their work could just be copied and sold or given away by anyone.
Blatantly false. The majority of these small creators are Twitch Streamers, Tik-tockers, Youtubers these days. All of them give their work away for free effectively.
In particular, the value in the Twitch-stream is from interacting with the chat realtime. Its effectively a live performance tied to a chatroom in some niche subject matter that the audience is interested in.
All of those can probably be released public-domain and free to copy, and they won't lose a single subscriber.
--------
Others are paid primarily through their Patreon account or other forms of merchandise (dolls, plushies, etc. etc.). Or direct advertisements inside of the content (see Oversimplified and VPN). You can't "skip" the ad because the Ad is part of the video itself and worked into the script.
Blatantly false. The majority of these small creators are Twitch Streamers, Tik-tockers, Youtubers these days. All of them give their work away for free effectively.
In particular, the value in the Twitch-stream is from interacting with the chat realtime. Its effectively a live performance tied to a chatroom in some niche subject matter that the audience is interested in.
All of those can probably be released public-domain and free to copy, and they won't lose a single subscriber.
--------
Others are paid primarily through their Patreon account or other forms of merchandise (dolls, plushies, etc. etc.). Or direct advertisements inside of the content (see Oversimplified and VPN). You can't "skip" the ad because the Ad is part of the video itself and worked into the script.
FWIW if you don't want to see sponsored segments in youtube videos etc, there's a tool for this called SponsorBlock which uses crowdsourced timestamp information and allows you to opt out of seeing various different kinds of content you'd rather skip over (sponsorship, self promotion, likecommentsubscribe segments etc.)
Well, economics has something called “revealed preferences”. Despite your opinions, most people do prefer media from the juggernauts based on where they spend their money.
Based on where people spend their money, your preferences are in the minority.
Based on where people spend their money, your preferences are in the minority.
Is it that they prefer media from juggernauts or that they're more likely to know of media from juggernauts?
Juggernauts are able to put their movies in theaters or cable/streaming television, put trailers in front of other movies or tv shows, take out billboards, etc. Juggernauts are able to market the hell out of their products, while most little guys don't have that opportunity.
I imagine that this also has a lasting effect. For example, juggernauts are more likely to have a streaming service trying to pick up their media while also putting that media ahead of little guy's media in that streaming service's recommendations. I'd also guess that over time the probability of organically finding little guy's media drops at a significantly faster rate than juggernaut's media .
Juggernauts are able to put their movies in theaters or cable/streaming television, put trailers in front of other movies or tv shows, take out billboards, etc. Juggernauts are able to market the hell out of their products, while most little guys don't have that opportunity.
I imagine that this also has a lasting effect. For example, juggernauts are more likely to have a streaming service trying to pick up their media while also putting that media ahead of little guy's media in that streaming service's recommendations. I'd also guess that over time the probability of organically finding little guy's media drops at a significantly faster rate than juggernaut's media .
Well, we have studios like Blumhouse that create low budget movies that do get a lot of press, have trailers, get plenty of promotion etc. They do well on an ROI basis. But they don’t top the box office.
Since 2014, all of Blumhouse's movies are owned, distributed, and co-produced by Universal Studios. Well, except for their BH Tilt division, which is partnered with Neon for co-production and distribution. Their most notable low-budget film that kickstarted their rise was Paranormal Activity, which was straight up acquired by Paramount Pictures for an actual theatrical release.
Blumhouse wouldn't be where they are without the juggernaut's purposefully propping them up.
Blumhouse wouldn't be where they are without the juggernaut's purposefully propping them up.
[deleted]
People spend their attention here, not their money. YouTube alone has far more watch-time than cinemas or Netflixes.
But how many people are willing to pay $15 to watch 2 hours of YouTube videos?
How many paying subscribers does YouTube have compared to Netflix?
How many paying subscribers does YouTube have compared to Netflix?
It's because there is no reason to pay for something you can get for free. The YouTube premium value proposition is different.
I think you’re presenting a false dichotomy here. Piracy has always been there and studios still make a lot of money.
People are still willing to pay for things, they just want a copy of the thing that they paid for so that it cannot be stolen from them later. The only answer here IS piracy.
People are still willing to pay for things, they just want a copy of the thing that they paid for so that it cannot be stolen from them later. The only answer here IS piracy.
Wanting your purchase to persist is totally reasonable. Not buying a digital copy where it can disappear is the solution.
It would be if Blu-ray disks and DVDs weren’t covered in copy protection making it close to impossible to backup your physical purchases, or guarantee your long term ability to watch them.
How many people here still have a functioning VCR? Hell, how many still have a functioning DVD player?
How many people here still have a functioning VCR? Hell, how many still have a functioning DVD player?
Dvd and Blu-ray are deeply upsetting things. Used to be that there were unskippable adverts and all sorts of junk I don’t expect if I paid for it.
Continually adding on user hostile additional revenue streams, like adverts, on top of something i already paid for is one of the major drivers of piracy.
Continually adding on user hostile additional revenue streams, like adverts, on top of something i already paid for is one of the major drivers of piracy.
> Not buying a digital copy where it can disappear is the solution.
There's not always another choice.
There's not always another choice.
Another false dichotomy!
How about i pay for things I’m buying but take a pirate copy as a backup?
It’s already clear that if you make digital content available at a reasonable price people will pay for it. The thing we’re arguing about is who is stealing from whom.
Here’s a genuine dichotomy. Assuming I’m interested in the media, then I’m either buying or I’m renting. If I’m renting call it renting. If I’m buying don’t steal it from me later by hiding the fact that it’s a rental in thousands of lines of legalese.
How about i pay for things I’m buying but take a pirate copy as a backup?
It’s already clear that if you make digital content available at a reasonable price people will pay for it. The thing we’re arguing about is who is stealing from whom.
Here’s a genuine dichotomy. Assuming I’m interested in the media, then I’m either buying or I’m renting. If I’m renting call it renting. If I’m buying don’t steal it from me later by hiding the fact that it’s a rental in thousands of lines of legalese.
No. Piracy is the only reason things moved in acceptable direction for regular consumer. Were it not MP3, P2P, codecs, matroska and other technologies and formats, we would all still be beholden to some ridiculous locked down standard imposed by the copyright holders and bricked-by-design devices ( ala Zune, which had crazy DRM approach ). Let us not forget that there were ideas of destroying your PC if there is an indication of not allowed content on it.
And even those gains, which were won with overwhelming disobedience, because early internet people were at least technical enough to burn a cd are now being eroded again, but under different guise. Piracy stopped being a thing, because it got easier to get stuff you wanted when you wanted it without trolling the internet. Now with streaming wars coming to a close, content owners think they will get to impose rules not realizing that they are making the same mistake thinking kids will not learn how to bypass whatever restrictions they put in place all over again.
History. Rhymes. All that.
And even those gains, which were won with overwhelming disobedience, because early internet people were at least technical enough to burn a cd are now being eroded again, but under different guise. Piracy stopped being a thing, because it got easier to get stuff you wanted when you wanted it without trolling the internet. Now with streaming wars coming to a close, content owners think they will get to impose rules not realizing that they are making the same mistake thinking kids will not learn how to bypass whatever restrictions they put in place all over again.
History. Rhymes. All that.
I don't like this argument. It's true that without copyright we would not have the current status quo, that much is obvious. But what we could have instead if everyone was allowed to remix any content and create things freely based on other published works is unknown and unknowable.
It is not obvious to me than having copyright is better than not having it. It would be better for some people and worse for others.
It is not obvious to me than having copyright is better than not having it. It would be better for some people and worse for others.
Agreed, I do think we need to make sure creation is rewarded, but creation should also be used for the good of society not hoarded for wealth. That's the problem we need to solve, we need to look for systems that encourage creation WITHOUT the need to create artificial scarcity and means for people to collect rents on intellectual property.
To wit, intellectual property itself is likely a concept that keeps us locked in a local maximum.
To wit, intellectual property itself is likely a concept that keeps us locked in a local maximum.
There’s a middle ground. If I want a movie or TV show, I’ll buy it from iTunes and then strip the DRM / pirate it. If I can find it streaming somewhere that yt-dlp works, I’ll download it. I don’t mind paying for content but only if it can’t be taken away from me after the fact.
Pirating is the solution if you want to watch Final Space in the year 2025.
All three seasons are available for streaming on hindilinks4u and probably a lot of other places so it's not yet lost.
Sure. I guess in this very narrow situation where the content is no longer available, I don't have an issue. But the person I responded to seemed to be suggesting stealing content as some sort of broad solution to an undescribed issue.
The problem is that you don't know which things need to be downloaded until they disappear.
Anyone can also do both if they like. Buy and download to have an archival copy.
we need less superhero movies, more independent content that is there for the sake of itself, and not for the sake of making money.
tying money to art cheapens it.
art is priceless, attaching a price therefore is a regression.
Not everything is about money, not everything needs to be done.
better that it is free: if you couldn't sell movies - the only ones that would exist are the ones people truly wanted to make - the quality of the artform would skyrocket, even if the quantity plummets.
tying money to art cheapens it.
art is priceless, attaching a price therefore is a regression.
Not everything is about money, not everything needs to be done.
better that it is free: if you couldn't sell movies - the only ones that would exist are the ones people truly wanted to make - the quality of the artform would skyrocket, even if the quantity plummets.
It would depend on what your definition is, I suppose.
The general narrative and has been if you copied it without written authorization, you are a pirate. Even if you are archiving a copy for future generations.
You can't even look up news articles from 10 years ago because of that.
The general narrative and has been if you copied it without written authorization, you are a pirate. Even if you are archiving a copy for future generations.
You can't even look up news articles from 10 years ago because of that.
With apologies for linking to Facebook, the creator of Final Space (Olan Rogers) has posted publicly about the news he was given that Final Space was being removed from all platforms, with licenses not being renewed, and (if he's to be believed, which...he's been trustworthy in the past) that the show was basically produced for "tax write-off" purposes: https://www.facebook.com/olanrogersofficial/posts/pfbid02fuC...
Relevant bits:
Relevant bits:
Five years of my life.
Three seasons.
Blood, sweat, and tears...
....became a tax write-off for the network that owns Final Space.
Yup. That's it. That's why it's disappeared everywhere in the USA. Five years of work vanished.
When the license is up internationally, Netflix will take it down, and then it will be gone forever. There are no more physical copies of S1 and S2, and no physical copies of Season 3 were ever made. Your memory of Final Space will be the only proof it ever existed.> Your memory of Final Space will be the only proof it ever existed.
And to those who know about bit torrent.
https://rarbg.to/torrents.php?search=final+space&category%5B...
And to those who know about bit torrent.
https://rarbg.to/torrents.php?search=final+space&category%5B...
His quote does not say that the show was produced for tax write-off purposes, it says that it's disappearing from platforms because of tax write-off purposes.
That could make sense if it was just Amazon removing it from their streaming service like Netflix did. Because streaming generates revenue, and would have to stop if the underlying assets were written off. But I don’t understand how that makes sense in this case, as far as I understand where they removed it from someone who bought an actual copy that does not generate recurring revenue. What am I missing?
How does the "tax write-off" work here, does anyone know?
Not an accountant. But I suspect the network assigns “value” to the show, based on its cost to produce, and ability to bring in long term revenue.
By eliminating the long term revenue, and effectively deleting the show, they’re basically destroying an asset. Which means they can claim the value of the show as a loss, and offset their profits. Thus reducing their tax burden.
Presumably the savings in tax are greater than expected long term income from licensing. So it makes sense to write off the asset and take the value of the asset as a loss.
I suspect that big part of why this makes sense, is because it often possible to claim the value of an intangible asset is at-least the cost of producing (in terms of salaries etc). So when writing off the asset, you get the ability to recoup some of the cost of production.
By eliminating the long term revenue, and effectively deleting the show, they’re basically destroying an asset. Which means they can claim the value of the show as a loss, and offset their profits. Thus reducing their tax burden.
Presumably the savings in tax are greater than expected long term income from licensing. So it makes sense to write off the asset and take the value of the asset as a loss.
I suspect that big part of why this makes sense, is because it often possible to claim the value of an intangible asset is at-least the cost of producing (in terms of salaries etc). So when writing off the asset, you get the ability to recoup some of the cost of production.
It's called "hollywood accounting". You play games with contracting around IP rights and services as part of the content creation process into such a way that a specific entity you want reports that they took in $X for the IP rights of the content, and then spent $Y > X to actually produce the content. If you own or have significant sway over enough of the legal entities involved, you can arbitrarily set the price of "rights" over certain parts of the process to make everyone look like losers.
Like yeah, the entity that sold the film reels to the cinemas made a billion dollars off those sales, but they had to pay a billion plus one dollar for the right to distribute from one of the other entities, who paid a billion plus 2 dollars to other entities invented for this purpose, and so on. You take gains exactly where it's most convenient for contracting to, and put losses everywhere that had a contract based on royalties or similar. The vast majority of the numbers can be whatever you want, within huge bounds, so you can optimize however you want.
This is how famous actors for large productions still end up getting screwed out of a paycheck.
Like yeah, the entity that sold the film reels to the cinemas made a billion dollars off those sales, but they had to pay a billion plus one dollar for the right to distribute from one of the other entities, who paid a billion plus 2 dollars to other entities invented for this purpose, and so on. You take gains exactly where it's most convenient for contracting to, and put losses everywhere that had a contract based on royalties or similar. The vast majority of the numbers can be whatever you want, within huge bounds, so you can optimize however you want.
This is how famous actors for large productions still end up getting screwed out of a paycheck.
Probably in the same way it prevents Megas XLR from being revived or released in any form:
https://untiedmagazine.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/10-years-meg...
> So here’s the ugly truth from what I understand, and I’m neither a lawyer or accountant so my understanding could be off – Megas was written off as a tax loss and as such can not be exploited, at least domestically, in any way, or the network will get into some sort of tax/legal trouble.
From looking at the wikipedia definition of "write-off":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-off#Accounting
> In business accounting, the term 'write-off' is used to refer to an investment (such as a purchase of sellable goods) for which a return on the investment is now impossible or unlikely. The item's potential return is thus canceled and removed from ('written off') the business's balance sheet.
So if a "write-off" is declaring it impossible to get any ROI on investment and you then get some return on it (after e.g. reviving the show, selling DVDs of it, etc), you've lied to the federal government to reduce your tax burden.
https://untiedmagazine.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/10-years-meg...
> So here’s the ugly truth from what I understand, and I’m neither a lawyer or accountant so my understanding could be off – Megas was written off as a tax loss and as such can not be exploited, at least domestically, in any way, or the network will get into some sort of tax/legal trouble.
From looking at the wikipedia definition of "write-off":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-off#Accounting
> In business accounting, the term 'write-off' is used to refer to an investment (such as a purchase of sellable goods) for which a return on the investment is now impossible or unlikely. The item's potential return is thus canceled and removed from ('written off') the business's balance sheet.
So if a "write-off" is declaring it impossible to get any ROI on investment and you then get some return on it (after e.g. reviving the show, selling DVDs of it, etc), you've lied to the federal government to reduce your tax burden.
Apparently it is some kind of benefit available to companies during a merger. There are like a thousand articles about it but I don't put a lot of faith in some random journalist nailing the details of the tax code so I'm not linking to any of them.
Perhaps a better question: If a particular show is written off, does anyone own the IP anymore? Do they still have the right to sue for copyright infringement if someone else broadcasts or distributes it?
Perhaps a better question: If a particular show is written off, does anyone own the IP anymore? Do they still have the right to sue for copyright infringement if someone else broadcasts or distributes it?
Say Netflix values your content at $10M. You can choose to license it to them, or instead say that you value it at $200M internally and do a write-off of that much on your books. So your total tax liability goes down by X% of $200M which could be greater than $10M.
Pretty much everything made in Hollywood is done as a tax write-off. That's the core of the business model: write-offs and incentives.
[deleted]
On the website the button does not say "rent", but "buy".
That's theft. The theft pure and simple, ancient, which has been around forever. Nothing new.
If you SOLD something and somehow REMOVE it or the ability to use it, it's theft. Whether it's done using modern technology (software) or old technology (crowbar) is not important.
The TOS do not override the law.
Amazon and others use the technology to commit very old crimes.
That's theft. The theft pure and simple, ancient, which has been around forever. Nothing new.
If you SOLD something and somehow REMOVE it or the ability to use it, it's theft. Whether it's done using modern technology (software) or old technology (crowbar) is not important.
The TOS do not override the law.
Amazon and others use the technology to commit very old crimes.
Agree!. I'd love to live in a world where if the button I click reads "buy" then by law I actually own that:
* It can't be taken away [1].
* I can lend it to anyone I want [2].
* I can sell it to whomever I want, for whatever price I want.
If a company doesn't want to do this, then the button and all UI pieces MUST say "rent". Not just some minor line in the EULA.
[1] Maybe the service where I downloaded it wants to go down? Great, then let me download it in a non-DRMed format to use forever. [2] And not having available to use myself during that time. Sure.
If a company doesn't want to do this, then the button and all UI pieces MUST say "rent". Not just some minor line in the EULA.
[1] Maybe the service where I downloaded it wants to go down? Great, then let me download it in a non-DRMed format to use forever. [2] And not having available to use myself during that time. Sure.
I understand and agree with what you're getting at, but having both [1] and [2] would be impossible. Without DRM, there's no way you could "lend" a digital copy to someone and remove your ability to use it.
All these companies figured out how to get around the legal issues of this a long time ago. They aren't selling you the movie/song/game/book, they are selling you a license to it. And they can revoke the license whenever they want.
This hasn't been legally figured out, it all exists in a gray area because they've never really been challenged on it. Most cases settle out of court because surprise, companies really, really don't want a proper legal answer to these questions. It's the same with stuff like Terms of Service contracts.
'Buy' and 'Rent' are two very ironclad terms in terms of consumer purchases though and I reckon if a case made its way to court they would likely rule in favor of the consumer. There was the case someone else brought up earlier of Andino v Apple arguing just that.
'Buy' and 'Rent' are two very ironclad terms in terms of consumer purchases though and I reckon if a case made its way to court they would likely rule in favor of the consumer. There was the case someone else brought up earlier of Andino v Apple arguing just that.
Legally it doesn't work that way.
Although I think that the laws should be strengthened so that it does work that way.
Amazon needs to be forced to give you a permanent license any time you "buy" a digital right. Those bits need to really be permanent. The structure of Amazon's contract with the producer needs to be changed so it is clear that the consumers rights to those copies are non-revokable. And that law needs to be made retroactive to all past contracts. The termination of any contract with Amazon should only lead to Amazon no longer being able to sell new digital copies.
Although I think that the laws should be strengthened so that it does work that way.
Amazon needs to be forced to give you a permanent license any time you "buy" a digital right. Those bits need to really be permanent. The structure of Amazon's contract with the producer needs to be changed so it is clear that the consumers rights to those copies are non-revokable. And that law needs to be made retroactive to all past contracts. The termination of any contract with Amazon should only lead to Amazon no longer being able to sell new digital copies.
So Amazon needs to change the button to "rent".
Without the change, it is at the very least false advertising.
In the end, big companies can distort the words and etc, But theft is theft, it is very clear that it is theft.
Without the change, it is at the very least false advertising.
In the end, big companies can distort the words and etc, But theft is theft, it is very clear that it is theft.
If you read the fine print you'll find that what you're buying is a license that can be revoked, so its currently perfectly legal. The law doesn't consider it theft. You'll have to get the laws changed so that contracts like that aren't legal.
Do TOS protect Amazon from false advertising? Fantastic. It opens up a new way to deceive consumers.
The button should read:
Buy this revokable (at any time) license to view this content
Buy this revokable (at any time) license to view this content
How about we don't let businesses redefine words to fit their business needs. "buy" already had a perfectly clear meaning, and whatever Amazon Prime peddles, you're not "buying" anything.
It has been this way since recorded media has been made available. From the 45 your parents (grand-parents?) bought, the cassettes--VHS or audio--your parents bought (you bought?) to the CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, and now digital copies.
That's probably the correct interpretation of the law, but the issue here isn't the law itself, but the cost to enforce it. There's no general precedent in US courts around these kinds of TOS contracts, so the matter would need to go trial, which would be very expensive. The vast majority of transactions with these kinds of terms are relatively small, a few hundred dollars at most, so it doesn't make sense to even retain a lawyer to threaten legal action.
I really, really think we need to move away from using the term "purchase" with these sorts of things.
You are not buying the title, you are buying access to the title so long as the title rights owner feels like you should have access to the title.
Amazon isn't alone, Valve/Steam has a similar issue, all music services, eBook platforms, audio books, etc. I think the war has already been lost on that front... you do not own anything and that's not going to change unfortunately.
For me, describing this as a "lease", perhaps with an explicit renewal date (that may or may not be free maybe) would make a lot more sense.
For Example:
Amazon isn't alone, Valve/Steam has a similar issue, all music services, eBook platforms, audio books, etc. I think the war has already been lost on that front... you do not own anything and that's not going to change unfortunately.
For me, describing this as a "lease", perhaps with an explicit renewal date (that may or may not be free maybe) would make a lot more sense.
For Example:
Lease "Final Space" for 10 years (Renewal Date: 9/28/2032): $29.99
Lease "Final Space" until 12/31/2022 (Non-Renewable): *Reduced Rate* $7.43
We can "want" this outcome all we want, but as long as distributors have no legal requirement to not have an asterisk and language explaining it somewhere else, it will always say "buy"
If enough people want this outcome, then this can motivate our legislators to impose this legal requirement. Consumers in some countries have better conditions not because of the benevolence of distributors but because legislators treat consumer-friendly legislation as good PR for (re)elections.
for games, u can buy the games on GOG ( RED PROJEKT plataform) whenever they remove a game they warn you, so you can download your copy before the game gets delisted.
Does GOG remove bought games? Is there a list?
GOG has removed some games from the shop - an infamous case being the three Fallout "Classic" games upon release of new and inferior versions by Bethesda.
However at least in this instance the games are still in my library years after.
Of note Steam despite its reputation has done the same with LOTR War In The North and Hentai Loli vs Pedobear (don't ask, it was a gift by a deranged friend I swear ;))
However at least in this instance the games are still in my library years after.
Of note Steam despite its reputation has done the same with LOTR War In The North and Hentai Loli vs Pedobear (don't ask, it was a gift by a deranged friend I swear ;))
Yes that's my impression as well. They remove it from the catalog, but if you bought you can still see it.
>Lease "Final Space" until 12/31/2022 (Non-Renewable)
This is how the avails are written for licensing to platforms. It even allows for different windows based on territory. This is how you can see content bounce from platform to platform.
This is how the avails are written for licensing to platforms. It even allows for different windows based on territory. This is how you can see content bounce from platform to platform.
yeah ... 'purchase now' type calls to action really seem misleading if you're 'leasing' or 'renting' something.
Lately I've seen posts of people who lost a "free" mail account. And people said "you don't own anything". But here, after paying... you still don't own anything.
I must be too old. I do not understand how can they take it away without refund.
If somebody could illuminate me, please?
I must be too old. I do not understand how can they take it away without refund.
If somebody could illuminate me, please?
I keep wondering why we as consumers allow this? I'm US based, and my bank closed one of my accounts and "held" my money due to suspected fraud when I deposited a good check. It took 2 months and a complaint to CFPB to get my funds released.
Before contacting CFPB, I was on numerous phone calls and made multiple trips to the local branch to get the funds released and it appeared that I would never get it back because one part of the bank does not communicate with the other. I had submitted all the documentation the risk department asked for but claimed they never received, and the local branches assured me it was sent, but could not give me a tracking number or reference number. After contacting CFPB the issue was magically resolved without any additional documents, apparently the documents were never lost based on their response.
When I asked how this is legal, they said I agreed to it when I opened the account, which is basically what every bank does.
So in a nutshell, nothing is yours even the money you worked hard for.
Before contacting CFPB, I was on numerous phone calls and made multiple trips to the local branch to get the funds released and it appeared that I would never get it back because one part of the bank does not communicate with the other. I had submitted all the documentation the risk department asked for but claimed they never received, and the local branches assured me it was sent, but could not give me a tracking number or reference number. After contacting CFPB the issue was magically resolved without any additional documents, apparently the documents were never lost based on their response.
When I asked how this is legal, they said I agreed to it when I opened the account, which is basically what every bank does.
So in a nutshell, nothing is yours even the money you worked hard for.
Their is a clause in their ToS which says when you buy something your are only renting it for the amount of time Amazon is happy to serve said content
This is why we need to educate people on how to pirate effectively and safely so big tech will have to listen to what the markets actually demands and what will be in the best interests of society
This is why we need to educate people on how to pirate effectively and safely so big tech will have to listen to what the markets actually demands and what will be in the best interests of society
At least just never "rent" anything ever. If they don't explicitly mention it is a n endless perpetual license to said content and their terminology implies that it is then you should never give them money under any circumstance.
It doesn't matter if you get a perpetual license, the companies that host the data themselves are ephemeral.
I do the opposite -- I rent everything, and expect it to be a rental. I have never been disappointed.
I do the opposite -- I rent everything, and expect it to be a rental. I have never been disappointed.
That's fine if the price reflects the value of it being temporary, but often they are selling it at a price that only makes sense for it being perpetual and also label it as such.
As long as that poor woman is still on the hook for millions of dollars over some CDs or whatever I’m not pirating anything no matter how “safe” it is promised to be.
That's the effect they were looking for. It's a basic terrorist tactic (in the original asymmetric warfare sense, not the "calling you a terrorist is an announcement that we're willing to violate our own professed norms to kill you and people like you" modern sense.) They found a sympathetic working class single native mother who had done relatively little filesharing to attack brutally, so average people could see and say "if they're willing to do that to her, they're certainly willing to do it to me." And the government announced with its verdict "and we'll help them do it."
My aging father, who has gone from a math-major programmer to nearly computer illiterate in 40 years, won't even take a file from me directly, out of fear. I think of that fear as a bit hysterical, but he uses Windows and an iPhone, so who am I to say that his devices won't report that file to the proper authorities some day in the future, after a forced update? Who am I to say it's not somehow doing it now, and flipping a flag at the NSA or Amazon marking him for special attention?
I obviously believe something like that at some level, with my insistence on FOSS and control over my devices.
The avenues for pirating have narrowed in an extreme way over the past five or so years. There can be no one professionally interested in piracy who isn't aware of all of them.
The government could just choose a week where they decide to contact and charge everyone associated with piracy, and pull down every pirate site. They could show PR-style grace by giving 98% of people a symbolic fine in return for the destruction of all of their digital storage, and give the other 2% brutal prison sentences. Everyone would then be placed on a public blacklist to encourage ISPs to ban them.
Entirely possible, and entirely consistent with centrist values. So I'm no smarter than people who don't pirate.
My aging father, who has gone from a math-major programmer to nearly computer illiterate in 40 years, won't even take a file from me directly, out of fear. I think of that fear as a bit hysterical, but he uses Windows and an iPhone, so who am I to say that his devices won't report that file to the proper authorities some day in the future, after a forced update? Who am I to say it's not somehow doing it now, and flipping a flag at the NSA or Amazon marking him for special attention?
I obviously believe something like that at some level, with my insistence on FOSS and control over my devices.
The avenues for pirating have narrowed in an extreme way over the past five or so years. There can be no one professionally interested in piracy who isn't aware of all of them.
The government could just choose a week where they decide to contact and charge everyone associated with piracy, and pull down every pirate site. They could show PR-style grace by giving 98% of people a symbolic fine in return for the destruction of all of their digital storage, and give the other 2% brutal prison sentences. Everyone would then be placed on a public blacklist to encourage ISPs to ban them.
Entirely possible, and entirely consistent with centrist values. So I'm no smarter than people who don't pirate.
Are you saying you don't commit tax fraud on a regular basis?
[deleted]
This is why I always either buy my shows/movies physically, or I pirate them. Ever since Amazon pulled 1984 from their shelves due to a copyright issue(they later put it back) I have avoided buying digital items ESPECIALLY from Amazon. Even games I try to not buy digitally anymore unless its from a DRM-free source like GOG or something.
That 1984 incident never fails to amuse me. Of all the books that it could've happened to, it had to be that one.
Only better option would've been Fahrenheit 451, and only just barely
I still buy my favorite movies on Blu-Ray, but to get the convenience of streaming I convert them myself to a digital format and add them to my Plex server, so I can watch them from anywhere I want.
I'm not going to feel bad about it, whoever own the rights got paid, and it's limited for my own personal use.
I'm not going to feel bad about it, whoever own the rights got paid, and it's limited for my own personal use.
End users should also keep in mind that artists and studios will frequently republish media to change or edit things on streaming services. Famously Kanye West spent many months making changes to the "Life of Pablo" album after its release: https://www.xxlmag.com/kanye-west-the-life-of-pablo-changes
Star Wars (the original trilogy) is also a classic example of this. The studio added drastic CGI changes for the 1997 release and still continues to make small fixes in subsequent releases. I believe the only way to watch it now in its original state is via old VHS tapes or bootleg scans of the original 35mm film.
And sometimes they just needlessly mess things up – for Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series, for a few years now online they've managed to lose the pre-gap material from the physical CDs, so instead of a seamless live album you now have some less-than-smooth track transitions and are also missing out on all the funny (Vol. 6) respectively infamous (Vol. 4) interaction with the audience.
I've started buying physical copies again of great movies. We still subscribe to streaming for the middling stuff, but if it's standout or niche (which is rare) then having a hard copy is worth it as the various platforms will often not have it available.
Exactly. My parents bought a movie, "Song of the South" physically forever ago, and now its almost impossible to get your hands on it because it depicts slavery. Now they can watch it whenever they want, regardless of the fact that that movie will never end up on Disney+
Is there any moral framework under which this isn't considered stealing, but illegal downloading is?
I mean yes. Like it or not, all parties involved agreed the terms.
That's not true under piracy.
That's not true under piracy.
The consumer did not actually agree to the terms of: "I, the consumer, will pay you $XX to download the film to my device, but you can delete it from my device at any time in the future without giving me a refund".
It may be written in the fine print, but it's not something that most rational consumers willingly agree to.
It may be written in the fine print, but it's not something that most rational consumers willingly agree to.
Exactly: take it to its logical conclusion. What if Amazon did this 5 minutes after they took your money for it, so you never got to watch it at all? Obviously that's not what anyone's agreeing to.
The flipside of it is that surely Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe.
Regulation of these shrink-wrap agreements is the only non-insane solution to this problem. Lawsuits are too slow and too expensive, and by the time you get enough people behind one, may be an exercise in squeezing blood out of a rock.
Regulation of these shrink-wrap agreements is the only non-insane solution to this problem. Lawsuits are too slow and too expensive, and by the time you get enough people behind one, may be an exercise in squeezing blood out of a rock.
> Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe.
That's not their only other choice. They could also let you download the content so you're not dependent on them forever to watch it.
That's not their only other choice. They could also let you download the content so you're not dependent on them forever to watch it.
They could, but unless you get some legislature behind this, who is going to enforce it when they explicitly choose not to include it in the TOS?
Amazon cannot just let you download the content. It's not up to them.
It certainly is up to them. They negotiated a contract with the content producers that did not allow for that, and could have negotiated a different contract that did by offering more.
They could have, but they didn't. Unless you make negotiating such contracts illegal, they and their competitors & partners will keep doing it.
If they didn't want to continue serving the film until the heat death of the universe, then that's what they should have done differently, rather than just unilaterally screwing over all the buyers.
I mean, they all click agree, because they DGAF about the terms, they just want to use the service. Consumers can absolutely refuse to accept these terms (and some do, like me), they just choose not to.
The terms of service here are too intricate and contain provisions contrary to the average "purchaser's" expectations. There was no agreement here.
Everyone by now is well aware this is the situation. This has happened so many times over the last 20 years that feigning ignorance is just silly.
People aren't "feigning" ignorance. The terms of service are long, in legal language, and not meant to be read. The ignorance is by design.
It's feigning ignorance when everyone already knows something though. "Oh I didn't read the terms" doesn't apply when it's common knowledge.
Generally, the people who are well aware of this situation are techies who have seen coverage of the issue in specialist media or who have been burnt by it personally.
Agreeing to terms without informed consent is not consent. A lay person can't honestly be expected to fully understand a novel's worth of legalese. From a moral standpoint, fuck the megacorps with a team of lawyers foisting such bullshit on people.
By releasing a product into the public does a business agree to some piracy in the social contract?
I "bought" an award-winning film and never got to watch it before it was removed.
No notice, no refund. I went to watch it one day and it was gone.
No notice, no refund. I went to watch it one day and it was gone.
DRM manages rights like jail manages freedom.
It's time for legislation to change the "Buy" or "Purchase" button on these pages to "License".
People need to be aware they are making an exchange of money for a long term license that can be lost/suspended/deleted at anytime.
If you want to own a copy you need to physically buy a version without DRM or at least with a DRM that has been defeated.
It's time for legislation to change the "Buy" or "Purchase" button on these pages to "License".
People need to be aware they are making an exchange of money for a long term license that can be lost/suspended/deleted at anytime.
If you want to own a copy you need to physically buy a version without DRM or at least with a DRM that has been defeated.
I remember a story (I think it was last year, but may have been longer), where someone had an Apple account, and deleted it. Apparently, $25,000 worth of media went with it, and he sued.
Not sure how that turned out, but I am pessimistic about his chances of prevailing.
Not sure how that turned out, but I am pessimistic about his chances of prevailing.
...and they wonder why piracy is a "problem"...
YARR motherfuckers.
YARR motherfuckers.
Why do people share screenshots of tweets instead of linking to a tweet, on twitter? I believe the tweet, but I can't find the original, was it deleted? https://twitter.com/TedVillavicenc/with_replies
EDIT: found it! https://twitter.com/TedVillavicenc/status/157383312338041241...
EDIT: found it! https://twitter.com/TedVillavicenc/status/157383312338041241...
Many reasons including: the tweet author closes their account, or deletes the tweet, or locks down their account or the tweet gets reported, etc etc.
I've argued that digital media should only be allowed to be called a "sale/purchase" if they have the license to continue to provide it in perpetuity.
That doesn't mean they have the license to continue to "sell" it in perpetuity, just that people who "purchased" it can continue to access it. Conversely, I shouldn't be able to license you the right to "sell" a digital good and then take away your ability to provide it to your customers who already purchased it.
If, I as the IP holder, don't want to provide that right, I shouldn't be able to license this "right of sale" and my "middle-man" licensee shouldn't be able to market it as a "purchase/sale".
That doesn't mean they have the license to continue to "sell" it in perpetuity, just that people who "purchased" it can continue to access it. Conversely, I shouldn't be able to license you the right to "sell" a digital good and then take away your ability to provide it to your customers who already purchased it.
If, I as the IP holder, don't want to provide that right, I shouldn't be able to license this "right of sale" and my "middle-man" licensee shouldn't be able to market it as a "purchase/sale".
Yeah, Netflix screwed the pooch on this when they didn't negotiate for perpetual & time-limited exclusive / non-exclusive rights to the IP they started with.
They could have thrown in some re-negotiation clauses to make people happy, but the thing is that letting someone keep a digital copy of something costs the copyright holder nothing other than the opportunity to bilk the customer out of a second purchase (which should be as illegal as selling someone a car and then making them re-buy it at a later date).
Peacock had every right to put The Office on their own platform and had no need to take it down from Netflix other than knowing that without their own strong & exclusive content no one would have made the switch.
They could have thrown in some re-negotiation clauses to make people happy, but the thing is that letting someone keep a digital copy of something costs the copyright holder nothing other than the opportunity to bilk the customer out of a second purchase (which should be as illegal as selling someone a car and then making them re-buy it at a later date).
Peacock had every right to put The Office on their own platform and had no need to take it down from Netflix other than knowing that without their own strong & exclusive content no one would have made the switch.
This has been the case for as long as people can remember. There's various tiers but it happens on all digital platforms. Steam, for example, will let you still download certain games if you bought them before they were delisted but others just entirely disappear.
Your example doesn't jive with the problem.
Steam, in your example, is still giving you access to the delisted content you bought, but, since Steam itself has lost the license to sell, they no longer let new purchases happen.
That seems fair. What doesn't seem fair is buying something and then it going away for me because of a licensing expiration between other parties.
Steam, in your example, is still giving you access to the delisted content you bought, but, since Steam itself has lost the license to sell, they no longer let new purchases happen.
That seems fair. What doesn't seem fair is buying something and then it going away for me because of a licensing expiration between other parties.
Yes, Steam was smarter about licensing (though I do believe they've completely pulled a few games entirely) than Amazon was.
And sadly, nobody is going to ever really care.
And sadly, nobody is going to ever really care.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-remov...
Citation on "Removed a few entirely". I'm not sure what the most recent example is, since this was a while back, but it has happened and could happen again.
Citation on "Removed a few entirely". I'm not sure what the most recent example is, since this was a while back, but it has happened and could happen again.
So Steam removed an online- only game after the servers were closed by Square Enix.
While online only games are certainly a problem it doesn't appear Steam's actions made the problem any worse.
While online only games are certainly a problem it doesn't appear Steam's actions made the problem any worse.
[deleted]
Why not legislate that the vendor must provide a refund in these cases?
Because that's not a solution. If someone breaks into your house and steals your TV it's still theft even if they leave behind the same amount of money that you originally paid for it. And the same should apply here.
Absolutely right, but it's not intended to be a solution, it's intended to make the dodgy the tax scheme more expensive, and hopefully no longer economically viable.
(Ideally in these situations all rights should also revert to the original creator).
(Ideally in these situations all rights should also revert to the original creator).
The accountants would love that.
Consider what that would do to a company's balance sheet.
Every revocable "purchase" would become a perpetual liability which will almost never be collected.
What happens when the company goes bankrupt? Do all the former customers line up for their refunds as creditors?
Consider what that would do to a company's balance sheet.
Every revocable "purchase" would become a perpetual liability which will almost never be collected.
What happens when the company goes bankrupt? Do all the former customers line up for their refunds as creditors?
That's kind of the point - shift the burden back to the vendor and make the cost of pulling the rug from under their customers more expensive.
Or re-engineer their product delivery mechanisms such that the customer can retain the product. Which is the desired outcome.
Or re-engineer their product delivery mechanisms such that the customer can retain the product. Which is the desired outcome.
This is the exact reason I have never "bought" digital "copies" of anything. A subscription service is one thing, but selling a "digital copy" is basically a scam.
That you are prevented from easily defeating any "copy protection" on content means the device one which you download and view that content is not fully controlled by you. Content publishers can reach into systems owned by you and relied on by you for financial transactions and health care information and mess around with data on your system. This is a designed-in security defect.
This does not meet the plain English meaning of "equal protection under law." Your property, your data, access to your money, your health records, etc. is not controlled by you in what should be a symmetrical and equal way.
In some contexts, like game consoles that are heavily subsidized by content revenue, content protection is a fair element of that deal. But not on systems you paid full price to own outright. Acts like deleting purchases should be treated as unauthorized access, and punished accordingly, no matter the click-through "agreement."
This does not meet the plain English meaning of "equal protection under law." Your property, your data, access to your money, your health records, etc. is not controlled by you in what should be a symmetrical and equal way.
In some contexts, like game consoles that are heavily subsidized by content revenue, content protection is a fair element of that deal. But not on systems you paid full price to own outright. Acts like deleting purchases should be treated as unauthorized access, and punished accordingly, no matter the click-through "agreement."
I buy Mission Impossible like once a year from Amazon. I think I've bought all of John Wick twice.
I kind of read the fine print at some point and it turns out "buying" is just renting for some arbitrary time until Amazon decides you have to pony-up again.
Maybe DVDs will make a comeback?
I kind of read the fine print at some point and it turns out "buying" is just renting for some arbitrary time until Amazon decides you have to pony-up again.
Maybe DVDs will make a comeback?
A DVD is typically the price of a movie ticket and it's not uncommon for the DVD to be available while the movie is still in theaters.
Presumably here what happened is that WB revoked Amazon's license but they really should have a system for dealing with this... either having the contract such that they retain the right to provide access to previous buyers, or putting the company on the hook for refunds.
I wonder if the situation is the same at other vendors or if Amazon's handling of taking something off the platform is uniquely bad. Surely there are people who own this through Apple or Google or Vudu or something (as I believe it's been equally pulled from all those platforms) who could weigh in.
I wonder if the situation is the same at other vendors or if Amazon's handling of taking something off the platform is uniquely bad. Surely there are people who own this through Apple or Google or Vudu or something (as I believe it's been equally pulled from all those platforms) who could weigh in.
Not all streaming providers do this. For example, if you buy a movie on Apple TV, you can download it. To me, that makes good on the "buy" agreement. Based on my last experience, I was trying to buy a movie that was available both on Amazon and Apple for the same price. The amazon version is bound by the EULA, and they don't let me download or play on non-DRM protected devices/apps. But Apple's was good. So I don't buy movies on amazon anymore.
Apple won't let you download or play a movie on non- drm protected devices/ apps either.
And you can't play anything you bought until you obtain Apple's permission to link the device you want to play on to your Itunes account.
This isn't exactly a traditional definition of ownership.
And you can't play anything you bought until you obtain Apple's permission to link the device you want to play on to your Itunes account.
This isn't exactly a traditional definition of ownership.
Apple bans your Apple ID you lose everything. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/apple-faces-clas...
Can you sell it to a friend after you've watched it, like it's 100% perfectly legal to do with a CD? If not, then you haven't bought it.
Will there be a time when media is "done"?
If I say "If tomorrow everybody stopped producing new books, series, music or movies, I could just start catching up to what's already been produced and it'll last me a lifetime", it may be not true today (is it?). But, will it be true at some point? When? In centuries? Months?
If I say "If tomorrow everybody stopped producing new books, series, music or movies, I could just start catching up to what's already been produced and it'll last me a lifetime", it may be not true today (is it?). But, will it be true at some point? When? In centuries? Months?
I remember reading this term years ago about the digital content and licensing. No where did the BSC content I was interested in “purchasing” list how long it would be available. I realized after that buying something digital isn’t really yours (unless you persist it elsewhere).
[deleted]
I tried to open the link to understand the reason but I was not able to do so.
I would definitely not like if my digital fully bought think would be unavailable for no reasons.
Independent of this I actually stoped caring to much owning all of the digital stuff I consumed over the years.
I love movies and tv shows but there is soon much and I seldom rewatch them, it's just not important to me anymore.
I'm still getting much more much better content for much less than 10 years ago.
And Im pretty sure there are still enough collectors out there who will make sure aaaal of this stuff will be kept for much longer as we all expect.
I would definitely not like if my digital fully bought think would be unavailable for no reasons.
Independent of this I actually stoped caring to much owning all of the digital stuff I consumed over the years.
I love movies and tv shows but there is soon much and I seldom rewatch them, it's just not important to me anymore.
I'm still getting much more much better content for much less than 10 years ago.
And Im pretty sure there are still enough collectors out there who will make sure aaaal of this stuff will be kept for much longer as we all expect.
[deleted]
You mean they revoked the licence that you purchased from them.
"Purchases."
I don’t know Usenet is still running fine for over 20 years for me.
Isn't Final Space available on Netflix?
For now, but the network that owns it notified the creator that they have plans to let Netflix's license expire, and then not license it elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33012167
That's probably exactly why it's no longer available on amazon.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OP's content was pulled because amazon lost access to the license.
How is that relevant?
Just curious why would anyone want to buy it.
He paid $5 a season. Assuming he doesn't want to watch anything else on Netflix, it's better to just buy it outright.
The only way I see this changing anytime is through a massive cultural shift in our views toward intellectual property, and I think the only way we can make that happen is by bringing it to the forefront of people's minds.
I'm not sure, but I think making piracy easy and appealing is essential to taking the wind out of the sails of the enormous entrenched interests that seek to lock down IP. Ultimately copyright is a tool that serves those who can buy up copyrights a whole lot more than it serves artists, and that fact is very corrosive to our society. Artists and creatives still need protection and support, but Disney and Amazon can go fuck themselves.
Basing our economic system in the digital world on artificial scarcity doesn't make any sense and artificial scarcity itself is morally incorrect.
P.S. Since people may ask if I have any concrete solutions. No, not really other than I think everyone would be better off if copyright and patents were limited to something sane like 10 years with no option to extend that time.