Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disney Pulls a Reverse Santa, Takes Back Christmas Shows From Amazon Customers

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the naughty-list dept.

Media 418

Sockatume writes "Since 2011, Amazon Instant Video has sold a series of Christmas shorts from Disney called 'Prep and Landing'. Unfortunately this holiday season, Disney has had a change of heart and has decided to make the shorts exclusive to its own channels. The company went so far as to retroactively withdrawn the shows from Amazon, so that customers who have already paid for them no longer have access. Apparently this reverse-Santa ability is a feature Amazon provides all publishers, and customers have little recourse but to go cap-in-hand to a Disney outlet and pay for the shows again."

cancel ×

418 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reverse Santa? (5, Funny)

Millennium (2451) | about 8 months ago | (#45706195)

Why not just call this a Grinch move and be done with it?

Re:Reverse Santa? (4, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 8 months ago | (#45706347)

Being that Amazon and Disney are involved, it's probably more like the anal version of a Reverse Cowgirl.

Re:Reverse Santa? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#45706583)

I'd be ok with that!

Re:Reverse Santa? (4, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 8 months ago | (#45706639)

I forgot to mention: You're always the one catching, and there's never any lube.

Re:Reverse Santa? (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | about 8 months ago | (#45706695)

... and the pitcher is $RANDOM_MALL_SANTA.

Re:Reverse Santa? (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#45706733)

Dammit!

Burned by the fine print.

Yes, I said burned.

Re:Reverse Santa? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706371)

Because in the end, the Grinch comes to learn the error of his ways and eventually saves Christmas. Somehow, I don't see Disney doing this...

Re:Reverse Santa? (4, Funny)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 8 months ago | (#45706817)

Because in the end, the Grinch comes to learn the error of his ways and eventually saves Christmas. Somehow, I don't see Disney doing this...

That's because you're thinking old-style Christmas.
This is the new millennium; the Libertarian one.
We only have to save Christmas for the already rich. The rest of us can play with the wrapping paper they toss in the garbage.

Re:Reverse Santa? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706473)

Because his name is Krampus not Grinch.

Re:Reverse Santa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706677)

That it is.Just to get even,fire up the bitorrent program and download it via your favorite site.It's there. This gives a hearty "FUCK YOU" to Disney.Don't forget to use Tor or Peerblock

Re:Reverse Santa? (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 8 months ago | (#45706691)

Why not just call this a Grinch move and be done with it?

What and risk a lawsuit from the Dr Seuss state [techdirt.com] .

Re:Reverse Santa? (4, Funny)

EvilSS (557649) | about 8 months ago | (#45706709)

Why not just call this a Grinch move and be done with it?

Because Grinch is a registered trademark?

my library (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706203)

Are you fucking shitting me?

Re:my library (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 8 months ago | (#45706337)

Is not your library if the vendor can take it from you. You didn't buy, just got a limited permission to play it while the real owner is in good mood, and in their own terms.

Re:my library (5, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#45706497)

Is not your library if the vendor can take it from you. You didn't buy, just got a limited permission to play it while the real owner is in good mood, and in their own terms.

This.

Let it stand as a lesson to all: You don't buy digital media from the likes of Amazon, you rent it.

Re:my library (2)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about 8 months ago | (#45706779)

Is not your library if the vendor can take it from you. You didn't buy, just got a limited permission to play it while the real owner is in good mood, and in their own terms.

This is why I don't "buy" videos from online streaming companies like Vudu or Amazon or iTunes. I either rent it for a small amount (usually Redbox these days) or for the select few I buy the disc so I can watch it anytime or media shift it to whatever format/device of the year it needs to be on.

Can someone explain (4, Interesting)

fredrated (639554) | about 8 months ago | (#45706205)

how this isn't theft?

Re:Can someone explain (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706223)

More likely fraud than theft...

Re:Can someone explain (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706225)

You bought a license to play...

Re:Can someone explain (5, Informative)

SteveDorries (1313401) | about 8 months ago | (#45706235)

Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it. That license they purchased was not irrevocable, it was revocable. This is the reason that I will never "purchase" a show or movie unless I have the right to make a personal hard-copy of it for backup purposes.

It's still morally reprehensible (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 8 months ago | (#45706375)

Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it.

You are almost certainly correct but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous or wrong. It also won't stop the almost inevitable class action lawsuit from some ambulance chasing legal firm which in this case I might actually cheer for.

Re:Can someone explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706237)

You don't own the content. You merely have a license to use it from the copyright holder. Apparently, for Disney/Amazon, that license can be revoked...

Re:Can someone explain (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706255)

Because Disney is a Corporation, and the one stolen from are just "little people". Corporations are people too, my friend! But only when it benefits them...

Re:Can someone explain (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706565)

^^^ That. Corporations are not beholden to the same laws as we peasants.

Bottom line is that our system is designed such that, with enough money, you can buy pretty much any verdict you want, within reason, so legal recourse against an entity the likes of Disney is well beyond the vast majority of folks. And, since your rights are only valid as far as you can defend them, megacorps like this can do just about anything they want to the rabble without fear of consequences.

Re:Can someone explain (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 8 months ago | (#45706265)

Because some favoured corporation is doing it?

Re:Can someone explain (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706283)

Revoking a revokable viewing license is not illegal. Unethical yes, but not illegal.

Re:Can someone explain (5, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45706341)

Because you didn't RTFA!

This week, though, the company temporarily removed access to both episodes of Prep & Landing, not only preventing new customers buying or renting the show, but also preventing those who had already paid – under the promise that they could "re-watch it as often" as they like – from doing so.

Amazon blamed the removal on "a temporary issue with some of our catalog data" which it says has been fixed, adding that "customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."

Re:Can someone explain (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#45706507)

Oh, well, I'm sorry I voted this up from the firehose, and already got ready to abandon purchases from Amazon(and possibly sue). The differences between a technical issue and a dick move are really substantial.

Re:Can someone explain (1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45706681)

So you were going to sue, about loosing a video you probably never owned?

Re:Can someone explain (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706701)

Amazon deleting copies of 1984 should've been enough to persuade you that you shouldn't do business with them. This is what happens when you deal with proprietary garbage or things that are out of your control.

Re:Can someone explain (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706627)

The "temporary issue" was a lack of publicity.

Re:Can someone explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706783)

^ This.

Re:Can someone explain (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#45706533)

IMO, depends on how it was represented; if Amazon made it abundantly clear that you are renting a license to view the content, and not actually purchasing it, then there's probably little to no legal recourse.

Actually, even if they buried that fact deep within the EULA, there's still probably no legal recourse, which is the part I find fucked up.

Love it (5, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 8 months ago | (#45706209)

The best arguments for piracy come from the studios/MPAA/RIAA/media outlets themselves. Even after you pay for content, it's only their whim that lets you keep it.

Re:Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706319)

Serves the people who paid for Disney products right - they should know better [disney-sucks.com] .

Re:Love it (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 8 months ago | (#45706683)

The hilarious part is that the ragtag piracy groups manage to offer a superior product to anything offered by the actual studios or their affiliates; all while evading attempts by the studios and governments to shut them down.

Re:Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706743)

Until the piracy groups are themselves funding and producing the shows, they didn't offer a superior "product." They offered a service, one not far removed from someone selling the "hottest" electronics from the back of their cars.

Re:Love it (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#45706823)

The problem with that idea is that movies from 10 or 30 or 60 years ago are just as good as the latest and greatest. You can't say that about electronics.

This is just one of many reasons you shouldn't draw stupid comparisons between physical and non-physical products.

Plastic Discs (4, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 8 months ago | (#45706213)

I'm very comfortable with technology, but in one sense I remain a Luddite: When it comes to video that we're going to shell out money for, I only buy it on DVD. If it's not available on DVD, we don't pony up the coin. I'll often rip the DVD and put it on my kid's iPods, but we still have the physical media. I accept that in a decade or so DVDs will go the way of the Dodo Bird and I'll have to make a change then, but for now it's plastic discs for me.

Re:Plastic Discs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706323)

I agree, but I'm just as fine with non-DRM digital files as with physical media. Files actually have a better shelf life if stored properly.

Re:Plastic Discs (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 8 months ago | (#45706367)

but I'm just as fine with non-DRM digital files

That's my DVD-ripped MP4s are

Re:Plastic Discs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706791)

but I'm just as fine with non-DRM digital files

That's my DVD-ripped MP4s are

The point is that having to rip the files is an inconvenience, and a DRM free download would be an acceptable (possibly preferred) alternative (from the GP's point of view).

Re: Plastic Discs (1)

Nialin (570647) | about 8 months ago | (#45706511)

But what happens when they require you to have a propriety DVD player that reads only Disney films (or other Media Corp IP), like region coding? That won't be an issue as the physical copies distribution platform is dying a slow death, however. Digital Rights Management is instead taking over, and still pushing the same old practices. Proprietary hardware/software that permits only specific media to be played is already in use (see: Amazon, iTunes, Xbox One, Steam, etc.). Then there's the fact that people in other countries are unable to watch Game of Thrones the day it comes out as it does for the USA, as well as the fact that it's the most pirated television show. This further illustrates the issue.

Re: Plastic Discs (2)

crakbone (860662) | about 8 months ago | (#45706721)

Actually that already happened. It was called DIVX. And it sold propriety encoded disks. It died a very large fiery death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX [wikipedia.org] Itunes originally started with drm encoded music and has since removed that. I foresee that will happen for video in the future as well. Right now the technology is so new and the production companies so old that the time to match up the new video business models with the slow bureaucratic functions of the studios is taking quite awhile to change. As well DRM is not cost efficient. Most people want to pay for their movies. They just want to do it easily and DRM does not make it easy. Eventually some one will want to transfer their amazon account to a child at death or give there will be a major failure and a production studio will lose a bunch of customers because they cannot access a video and drm will start to be dropped.

Re:Plastic Discs (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 8 months ago | (#45706727)

... We are turning into our parents.

"When I was your age, we DROVE to the store and used REAL MONEY and bought the DVD! And we LIKED IT THAT WAY!"

Re:Plastic Discs (1)

khb (266593) | about 8 months ago | (#45706805)

I've had kids destroy a lot of plastic disks (car usage). There's a lot to be said for digital bits. Obviously, technically savvy people can copy plastic disks, but a lot of people can't/won't/don't.

For a lot of content, watching it 10 times is "enough". Of course, kids may want to watch it more than that. But it can drive parents nuts.

Ahhh, (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | about 8 months ago | (#45706227)

gotta love digital content. It's like the guys from Best Buy kicking in your door and taking your treasured DVD of Flash Dance. What thats not legal? Who Knew!

Re:Ahhh, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706431)

my copy of flashdance is riddled with protein stains. doubt they'd want it back

Re:Ahhh, (1)

Megane (129182) | about 8 months ago | (#45706671)

gotta love DRM content

FTFY. The problem isn't the digital nature of the media, it's the Digital Restrictions Management on the media that depends on the perpetual existence and benevolence (and whim) of a corporation that doesn't give a fuck about how you feel as long as they already have your money. And sometimes they don't care even before they have your money.

Note that DVD has DRM, but it was so badly implemented (as is the case with most crypto designed by people who don't understand crypto) that it is easy to decrypt, so it effectively has no DRM at all. As long as the physical media is intact, your Flashdance will continue to dance.

With DIVX-style DRM, it has to phone home for a key every time you want to play it. But with streaming (what TFA is talking about), you don't even have that much. You only get to see anything at the whim of the other end. You don't even get a copy of the home game. With DRM, you're a complete loser!

RTFA (5, Informative)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 8 months ago | (#45706231)

The article says that Amazon called it "accidental," and that access has already been restored for those who already bought it.

The most likely explanation is that Disney wanted to stop selling it through Amazon, and nobody really considered the fact that that customers should retain access to what they've already bought.

Re:RTFA (2)

TheLink (130905) | about 8 months ago | (#45706285)

Hope they treat accidental shoplifters in your country just as nicely then.

Re:RTFA (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45706723)

That would require the "accidental shoplifter" to return the item when they realized they had it.

Accidental? RIIIIIGHT... (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 8 months ago | (#45706291)

The article says that Amazon called it "accidental," and that access has already been restored for those who already bought it.

Accidental my shiney hiney. It was only "accidental" until either the PR or legal department found out about it. In any case this is EXACTLY why I do not own a Kindle. This isn't the first time this happened and the fact that they even have the ability to do this makes me pretty uncomfortable.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706449)

Amazon blamed the removal on "a temporary issue with some of our catalog data" which it says has been fixed, adding that "customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."

Cue lawsuit in 3-2-1... (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 8 months ago | (#45706239)

The company went so far as to retroactively withdrawn the shows from Amazon, so that customers who have already paid for them no longer have access.

Can we say "class action lawsuit"? I knew you could...

Disney's PR flaks are going to be working some overtime this holiday season.

Re:Cue lawsuit in 3-2-1... (4, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 8 months ago | (#45706679)

Class actions are gone, there is a binding arbitration clause in every single sales contract since the supreme court ruled they aren't unconscionable.

Would you expect anything else? (5, Informative)

CTU (1844100) | about 8 months ago | (#45706245)

Disney has been fighting to extend copyright forever so they can keep every second of anything to themselves, so why not pull more shit like this? Clearly Disney only cares about how to make a quick buck and shaft the fans and viewing public whenever they can, but this act really only undermines digital media as a whole as you can not tell when someone will just pull their shit for some arbitrary reason leaving you having paid for nothing.So yeah the pirates right now are glad that they don't have this crap to deal with and if one site goes down, they find it someplace else for free and maybe better quality as well.

Credit card charge-back time (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706251)

Take back what you sold me, I take back the money I gave you.

Re:Credit card charge-back time (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 months ago | (#45706427)

You normally only have a limited timeframe (2 months or so) to do a chargeback. Most people who had these purchases revoked likely bought this content in a previous year (as stated, Amazon started selling this in 2011).

The chargeback option likely isn't going to be that useful. Not to mention executing a chargeback can lead to a lot of merchants blacklisting you.

Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706257)

The summary is complete FUD according to the article. The show was removed from customers that paid for it by a mistake, which was corrected shortly thereafter. It seems that anyone that bought it can still watch it just fine.

Re:Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45706301)

Shhh... You don't want to mess with a good old fashion outrage with facts.
 

Re:Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (4, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45706325)

The fact that it even happened should be a warning flag to stay the hell away from digital downloads as the primary means of acquiring entertainment.

It's not so bad when it's media that you can get physically in another form (like Nintendo's Virtual Console versus the original carts). However, when you start seeing media sold only as a digital download (which already happens sometimes), then you're at the mercy of the copyright holder. Do you really trust the copyright cartel, long-term, to let you have access to their stuff without paying and paying and paying?

Re:Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706489)

The summary is complete FUD according to the article. The show was removed from customers that paid for it by a mistake, which was corrected shortly thereafter. It seems that anyone that bought it can still watch it just fine.

Riiight.

Because only Fox News engages in made-up shit that's, say, "fake but accurate".

Re:Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 8 months ago | (#45706795)

No, Fox didn't buy Slashdot. But a Two Minute Hate *has* long been a feature of Slashdot.

Re:Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706831)

I remember Dan Rather losing his job because he made up a story on the news, did he work for Fox?
I remember NBC not running a single story on Fast and Furious for 18 months, are they owned by Fox?
Just today we had a story about CBS doing a coverup story on 60 minutes for the NSA, are they owned by Fox?
I'm reading story after story on all news sites about the failure of Obamacare (which I'm assured are all false), are they all owned by Fox?

How many times can the truth smash you on the head before you acknowledge the truth?

Thanks Disney! (2)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 8 months ago | (#45706269)

I almost forgot why I don't purchase individual videos that don't give me either a tangible copy or an actual file download. Now I remember!

Re:Thanks Disney! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 8 months ago | (#45706543)

I don't purchase them because they're $14.99. I rent in HD for $2.99. If i want it, I'll buy the BluRay Lay-Zar Disc.

This is the problem with digital downloads (4, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45706277)

You're not buying the goods, you're renting them. You're always at the whim of the copyright owner with regards to your continued access to the work you paid for.

Mark my words, when physical media is gone, they'll stop selling media to you indefinitely, but charge you for the same content on a recurring basis. Not like Netflix where you're paying for access to stream any number of works, but you'll pay per month (or per access) for a single work.

Plus, with everything so locked down and controlled by the copyright owners, much more media will be lost to time due to the inability to move it between systems freely. Almost 30 years later, you can still acquire and play the original Super Mario Bros on an authentic NES, without getting the okay from Nintendo to do so. When digital downloads are the only method to acquire media, then you can forget about buying used copies 30, 40, 50 years later. By the time copyright actually lapses and you can legally do something about it, it'll be too late as all the original hardware will likely be either destroyed or non-functional.

Re:This is the problem with digital downloads (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#45706547)

Mark my words, when physical media is gone

Then I will consider my sizaable CD and DVD collection to be complete, and never 'buy' any more of it.

Either tell me I'm only renting it and charge a fraction of what you charge to 'buy', or understand that once the consumers figure out that they're not really buying anything, and paying an inflated price for it ... hopefully some of them will just stop giving you the revenue stream.

It's gotten to the point that I categorically will NOT buy and Blu Rays with the Ultraviolet crap -- I'm not signing up with 3 different places to have a piece of digital media which needs to call home every time I want to play to confirm they've not revoked my license. Because sometimes I want to watch the movie when I do not have network access (like on an airplane).

I bought exactly one DVD with Ultraviolet, and it was the last.

Re:This is the problem with digital downloads (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706757)

I still buy DVDs. I find Blu-ray consumer hostile, and I'm not stupid enough to pay a "license" for ephemeral, online movies they can take away.

Re:This is the problem with digital downloads (1)

Dracolytch (714699) | about 8 months ago | (#45706689)

You know... I just can't get behind these media doomsday scenarios. Here's a few reasons why:

1) Unlimited media streaming has proven itself as a service. There's a reason why: In many cases it diversifies their revenue to help deal with the problem of...
2) If they asked me to pay for something every time I wanted to see it, I'd simply consume less (Much like how I've cut cable). It's not like I'm required to watch movies. Yes, they're nice, but they're not required for life/happiness/enjoyment.
3) There is enough competition (and will ALWAYS be enough competition) in the entertainment sector for someone (very often a kid with a dream) to provide something interesting at a reasonable price
4) Media has continued to move on, and now media can be basically eternal, and probably will be so long as there's value in that *thing*. Do I really need a used copy of a 50 year old game? Yes, it might be fun for an afternoon, but there will also be an additional 50 years' worth of games made by then. I'll find something to do. I don't need to have every game ever made available to me.

Re:This is the problem with digital downloads (2)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45706771)

I'm not shitting on streaming subscriptions. I actually like the idea of it, it's basically the modern-day video store, except instead of physically going to the video store (or having them mail you discs), you pay a subscription and can access anything you want. But it's up front with the fact that it's a subscription and you lose access to everything if you no longer pay.

The problem with digital downloads in a non-streaming fashion is that people treat them like purchases, both consumers and copyright holders. "Buy it today on the XStation Wii eShop!" If it's being sold as a purchase and not as a rental, there are supposed to be certain rights that digital downloads bypass.

Re:This is the problem with digital downloads (1)

Megane (129182) | about 8 months ago | (#45706801)

When digital downloads are the only method to acquire media, then you can forget about buying used copies 30, 40, 50 years later.

What do you mean "when"? Many PC games have already been like that for years, especially Steam games. You have to go through online activation (or download a crack) before you can play a shrink-wrap copy of a game from a brick-and-mortar retail store. This requires entering a one-time code, making it impossible to buy used. Even then, the game may use a multi-player server which is taken down a few years after release. The only difference between the different activation methods is that Steam is more likely to be around 30 years from now than any other currently existing online activation, but you'll probably won't need the discs anyhow.

So far, console games will still play from an original disc without phoning home, thanks to physical changes on the discs to prevent copies (not even allowing honest backups). Microsoft wanted to change that with XBone games, but got serious backlash a few months ago when word got out.

Read the article? (4, Informative)

sjpadbury (169729) | about 8 months ago | (#45706293)

From TFA:
Amazon blamed the removal on "a temporary issue with some of our catalog data" which it says has been fixed, adding that "customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."

One person claimed on another blog that Disney was retroactively removing this on purpose, So of course we'll sensationalize that as the Headline here....

Amazon not learning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706331)

Amazing, even for the control-obsessed world of Amazon. Didn't it learn from the 1984 fiasco? I read the article in The Guardian, and it's still unclear whether those who've bought this video will get it back.
Some day we're going to have a nasty, prolonged lawsuit over whether those who "buy" a digital product really own it and what that means when the market or the formatting standards change. Do we really own something digital if it can only run on devices that haven't been made for ten years?
--Michael W. Perry, Stories for Girls by Hans Christian Andersen.

Re:Amazon not learning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706829)

No, what is amazing is that we get to hear your irrelevant blather on something else where you speculate and not read the article.

What does it mean ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706369)

Is it related to the Amazon CEO announcement ?
Amazon CEO speech [youtube.com]

This is why I don't buy streaming videos (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 8 months ago | (#45706383)

If there's a movie I want to own, I purchase a used DVD from Amazon and rip it myself -- then I can transcode it to any format I want (even extracting audio-only to listen to in the car if I want to), and no one can later decide that they didn't mean to sell it to me and reverse the purchase, and even if the vendor I bought it from goes out of business or leaves the streaming business, I don't have to worry about how I'll be able to access the content that I already "own".

Plus, the used DVD is typically cheaper than the streaming "purchase" fee.

I'm sure many people skip the DVD middleman and just go straight to PirateBay to download their very own copy for free. I still don't know why the movie industry insists on making purchased content much less convenient than readily available pirated content. I don't mind paying a fair price for content, but why do I have to go through hoops to use that content the way I want to?

Re:This is why I don't buy streaming videos (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#45706693)

I enjoy digging through the "$5 DVD" bin that pretty much every store has sitting in the aisle. Often there're some real gems in there, if you dig deep enough.

Ooh, Johnny Mnemonic / Point Break double feature? For a fiver? I'm in!

This is why I won't buy "Ultraviolet" digital copy (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 8 months ago | (#45706393)

The studios have been pushing their own Ultraviolet digital copy [uvvu.com] scheme for a few years now (interestingly enough, Disney was one of the last holdouts). Even if you set aside the well-earned distrust most of us already have for the studios, it's obvious they're trying to play yet another game with the media we purchase. With at least some of the disks (and perhaps all of them), the purchaser's right to view the digital copy of the movie/show has a finite lifespan of just a few years (like 2-3)!

Thank heavens these guys are stupid enough to keep shooting themselves in the foot often enough where even non-tech-savvy people mostly don't buy into it.

On the rare occasions I decide to purchase a movie or show, I just buy the disk. As soon as it arrives, I rip it - then the disk gets put away in a closet. There are no issues with latency, quality, or bandwidth when I'm streaming my own movies to my TV - and I'll have them ten, twenty, even thirty years from now.

And how is this different from theft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706407)

I don't see how Disney can legally do this? Amazon obviously had negotiated some terms to distribute this Disney short and Disney made it's profit from that deal. Amazon similarly made money from the customer, so a contract was established from Disney to the customer with Amazon playing the middle man. For Disney to either not honor that contract or charge for product previously sold seems like a breach of the contract. I don't see how that is any different than theft. If I was a purchaser of that Disney product and had all of the receipts, bills and terms, I think this would be a fun one to take to small claims court if Disney doesn't backpedal from this looming PR disaster they are about to get themselves into.

FUCK THAT. COPY THEM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706417)

Disney is the worst offender stealing from the American public. They have broken their contract with the people, where we grant them a limited monopoly on their creative work (enforced through violence) in exchange for them releasing all claims to the work after the monopoly has expired. They have reneged on their end of the bargain.

So COPY, COPY, COPY all of their works. New or old. Don't pay them a penny.

Sorry ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#45706453)

Apparently this reverse-Santa ability is a feature Amazon provides all publishers, and customers have little recourse but to go cap-in-hand to a Disney outlet and pay for the shows again.

Then why do these companies continue to act like we will keep "buying" stuff from them if they can do this whenever they want?

If I paid you for something, I either expect a refund, or something clearly up front which says "you're only kind of buying this, but we can take it away any time we like". Not finding out after the fact that they can.

And this is the problem with the corporations view of digital media -- we have no rights, and only get what we 'bought' as long as they feel like giving it to us.

In general, it's easier for the consumer to just pirate the stuff than to try to do it the way they want; because we just keep getting burned.

That it was Di$ney doing this is no surprise. They seem to be the world leaders in this kind of thing, and are mostly greedy bastards. Pity they've bought Marvel.

This kind of stuff will only get worse.

They should be more honest (1)

MpVpRb (1423381) | about 8 months ago | (#45706509)

You are never buying from them, only renting for variable durations

Charge back (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#45706523)

let the CC companies bully disney and amazon.

Nothing to see here (1)

jetkust (596906) | about 8 months ago | (#45706557)

Amazon wouldn't sell digital downloads where the company that owns the rights can just revoke access at any whim. Both Disney and Amazon know that doesn't make sense. People who bought it still have access to it. That's the whole point of a digital purchase. Denying access to it was an accident and apparently has been fixed. And for people saying they want to stick with discs, have fun living in the past.

Re:Nothing to see here (4, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#45706703)

This doesn't stop Amazon from just cancelling your account anytime they feel like it.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-customers-kindle-deletes-account [theguardian.com]

Or maybe just dropping their video biz.

Not to mention you can't transfer ownership, will it to your kids etc.

Sorry DRM is stupid all day. Give me the physical media every time.

There own channles so whats the point they get use (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#45706569)

for forcing the

Di$eny channel
Di$eny JR
Ds$eny XD

are forced into the basic pack

Yarr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706575)

Pirates Win.

1984 (4, Insightful)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | about 8 months ago | (#45706577)

anyone remembered the Amazon Kindle's 1984 affair?

Amazon mistakenly took away purchases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706589)

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/16/amazon-disney-christmas-tv-special-prep-and-landing

Smile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706605)

This is why I smile when people give my crap and think I'm stupid because I still buy physical media.

Prep and landing? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#45706613)

Why the heck did they name Christmas shorts "Prep and landing"? I've been baffled by this since it came out.

Also, Amazon didn't seem to be able to remove the versions I have of these shorts from my NAS. Funny thing.

The only proper way to do internet stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45706617)

warez

stupid proprietary channels (1)

kirkb (158552) | about 8 months ago | (#45706673)

If greedy content providers had their way, then instead of having a single netflix or hulu or amazon account, we would also buy monthly subscriptions to Disney, WB, HBO, Universal, etc. Ain't gonna happen.

But --- (3, Funny)

Pope Raymond Lama (57277) | about 8 months ago | (#45706711)

After the Orwell's 1984 fiasco had not Bezzos "promised" he would never use this feature again?
(Yanking content from the users?)

The Evils of CopyRight, IP and DRM (2)

franknagy (56133) | about 8 months ago | (#45706755)

Rant On.

You don't own it, you only rent it and the "owners" can get make you pay again and again.
I'm sure they (RIAA/MPAA/etc) would like if everything was pay-per-view and we could
not even own our own thoughts.

I dread the day when IP lawyers realize our brains hold memories of the songs we've
heard, the movies we've seen and the books we've read and demand we be made to
forget it all or pay, pay, pay.

Rant Off.

Reverse Santa! (1)

BisuDagger (3458447) | about 8 months ago | (#45706787)

Because Myley Cyrus took Reverse Cowgirl with her when she left Disney!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>