Movie Availability on iTunes May Be Temporary

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/10/movie-availability-on-itunes-may-be-temporary/)

CNet explains the reason (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10119509-93.html) behind a Macworld report last week (http://www.macworld.com/article/137363/disappearing_movies.html) that several movies had disappeared from the iTunes Store. Frequent Macworld contributor Kirk McElhearn noticed something interesting when he went to grab a movie from the iTunes Store. Of the 15 films he had bookmarked for later viewing, an astounding nine were no longer available for purchase. Or rental. Nor, for that matter, did they seem to exist anywhere on the iTunes Store at all.CNet explains that this is due to licensing agreements between the movie studios and Apple.

Typically, movies have set distribution windows that are followed in order: theaters, DVDs, pay-per-view (and iTunes) and finally, broadcast TV. As movies cross over into broadcast TV distribution, they are being removed from Apple (and Netflix) distribution. Normally, release windows don't affect retailers or video-rental services after they've begun selling or renting films. Warner Bros. doesn't go into Best Buy and pull DVDs off the shelf when Comcast airs Casablanca. The corner Mom and Pop video store doesn't surrender copies of Gladiator to Universal Studios when the film appears on ABC. But Internet stores are being treated differently. What this means for iTunes and Netflix customers is that movies will pop in and out of the services.Those who have already purchased these films will, of course, be able to continue to watch them.

Article Link: Movie Availability on iTunes May Be Temporary (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/10/movie-availability-on-itunes-may-be-temporary/)

[tjcampbell]

The movies are overpriced, especially as we can only download so much without getting charged extra by our ISP.

[talkingfuture]

It shows that the TV companies are scared of iTunes. I suppose they need to protect their revenues but it would be nice if some of them embraced downloads and tried to speed things up. Wishful thinking for now.

[Tallest Skil]

The movies are overpriced, especially as we can only download so much without getting charged extra by our ISP.

Maybe in the UK. There's no limit on our ISP.

[JonHimself]

So are they saying that essentially there is a 'blackout' period when a movie will be shown on broadcast TV? For example if Gladiator was airing on ABC on Friday, it would be unavailable from Wednesday to Sunday of that week and then will re-appear in the store?
I read the article but I guess was only half paying attention.

[137489]

Hence why I either only purchase DVD's or watch whatever is available (that day) for free on HULU.COM. I would be ticked to finally find time to watch a good movie and oops - it is no longer available.:eek:

[dukebound85]

Maybe in the UK. There's no limit on our ISP.

most isp's in the US have limits

read your contract, you might be surprised

edit: once such case by search
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2329170,00.asp

another case albeit trial
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080603-40gb-for-55-per-month-time-warner-bandwidth-caps-arrive.html

in short, any isp provider who thinks a user is abusing the bandwidth cap will be contacted and possibly shut off

[Cameront9]

I don't understand the reasoning for this at ALL. So instead of leaving the file up, where it could potentially make more money, they remove it because "it's going to be on TV?"

WTF? Content providers really don't have a clue what the consumer wants anymore...

[brad.c]

Maybe in the UK. There's no limit on our ISP.

Rogers and Bell, respectively Canada's largest cable and dsl providers, BOTH limit usage to within set rates. You go over, you pay more. I use a private DLS provider that offers unlimited use, although ultimately that will change if tier 1 providers penalise resellers accordingly.

[ATG]

That makes no sense.

DVDs are still on sale after the movie is broadcast on TV. Why not on iTunes too?

If they want to reduce piracy, they've got a funny way of doing it.

[guzhogi]

The movies are overpriced, especially as we can only download so much without getting charged extra by our ISP.

I agree. I'm w/ Comcast, not sure what my limit is, though.

One thing I don't like about the movies is you're paying as much for the iTunes version as the actual DVD, but only get the movie itself in English (or whatever language your store is) and nothing else. On DVDs, you get subtitles, often in multiple languages, multiple audio languages, audio commentaries, behind-the-scenes stuff & other special features. If we're going to pay the same price for for both, we might as well get all the features. Of course, all those extras would probably add loads to the download time, but some people (like me) like the special features. Maybe let you get just the movie for less & then everything for the same price as the DVD. I'm not sure how the actual DVD/packaging costs compared to the online/bandwidth costs.

That makes no sense.

DVDs are still on sale after the movie is broadcast on TV. Why not on iTunes too?

If they want to reduce piracy, they've got a funny way of doing it.

From AppleInsider.com:
But for whatever reason, Internet movie stores aren't being treated the same as their brick-and-mortar counterparts. They're instead seen by Hollywood as competitors to television networks and are therefor being treated as entertainment companies. The reason? Money.

[lowbatteries]

This doesn't make sense, really. iTunes both rents and sells movies - so a movie should be buy-able in the "DVDs" window, and rentable in the "pay-per-view" window.

And I would think the "DVDs" window would stay open indefinitely, as those who are going to buy an iTunes movie or DVD are a completely different market than renters or TV watchers. Not only do companies not go in and pull current DVDs off the shelves of stores, they KEEP SHIPPING DVDs to stores (and probably keep shipping to rental outfits too).

This is basically them just holding the new "digital revolution/nightmare" on a tight leash so it doesn't get out of their control.

It's amazing that the media industry ever got so homogeneous and inflexible.

[Drumjim85]

just shows that the big companies STILL don't know how to utilize the internet and this new market ....

[twoodcc]

wow. i wasn't really expecting this. i don't like this one bit. but what can you do?

[dontwalkhand]

I have a solution:

Get rid of TV as we know of it now. Instead, treat the "TV" you have now as nothing other than a mere giant computer monitor. Download the episodes you want to watch using iTunes, Netflix, etc, or pop in a DVD.

I am guessing that the broadcast TV people are also afraid of OnDemand from cable companies.

[themoonisdown09]

most isp's in the US have limits

read your contract, you might be surprised

edit: once such case by search
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2329170,00.asp



Comcast has confirmed that all residential customers will be subject to a 250 gigabyte per month data limit starting October 1.


I can't imagine using 250 GB in one month. These must be people who do all the peer-to-peer stuff.

[morespce54]

That's weird...

I mean, they remove the movie from theaters, then the movie is on DVDs (but that is not why they remove it from the theaters 'tho), then they keep selling/renting DVDs and make it available on line, then they remove it from on line renting/selling because they make it available to broadcasters but still sell/rent it on DVDs... It seems to me there is no real logic behind this.

Anyway, the same thing happened with songs on iTunes. Some of my bookmarked ones are no longer available in my iTMS...
Either something changed or someone screwed up by putting them there in the first place... ;)

[zombitronic]

I've got one word to say to the studios: Yaaarrrr.

[Lumeswell]

That makes no sense.

DVDs are still on sale after the movie is broadcast on TV. Why not on iTunes too?

If they want to reduce piracy, they've got a funny way of doing it.

Given the way everything else seems to have gone lately Im surprised this isn't built into the DRM, so even if you had already bought it you were unable to watch it while it was being broadcast somewhere.

What I find really silly is this is stopping the ultimate impulse buy for the video industry. Im watching a movie which Im really enjoying, but I missed the start of it, or can't hang around to send the end of it - best solution - go buy it now online, because you know by the time you get the shops there are other things you should be spending money on.

By the time it is back in the store you will have moved on and it wont be high on your mind anymore.

Instead of taking it out of the store the studio should be buying add space during the broadcast to direct people to the online store to buy the movie now. If the broadcaster is putting pressure on the studio because they are worried it will erode their audience, let the studio push back - how far will the broadcaster get if the studios refuse to give them new content to show? Anybody who already loves the movie would already have the DVD before it is broadcast anyway.

[sfh]

yet another example of why the recording and movie industries are ****** retarded.

they treat everyone as if we are criminals and try to control every aspect of the distrubution line ... next thing we wont be able to watch a movie unlesss we change our screen brightness to the minimum level and the contrast to the same - so we don't try to film it on our screen .

when are they going to stop shooting themselves in the foot?

[bilbo--baggins]

For me this really spoils the whole point of movie rentals on iTunes. Rather than buying DVD's, I recently decided that I would rather rent in HD, and if it's a movie I really like I'll happily pay to rent it again in future instead of keeping boxes full of discs.

Now if Apple are removing movies from the iTunes store it spoils my plan - and I'm more likely to just buy it on DVD.

What a ridiculous backwards step.

I did find it strange that Batman Begins seemed to have disappeared when I looked for it yesterday.

[mzd]

i noticed this with the new Die Hard movie. it was even featured in the keynote but now it isn't on iTunes.

[gkarris]

Awesome!

This helps to save the movie rental stores and our local shops that buy/sell new and used DVD's.

I prefer having the physical copy anyways - a DRM'ed copy can easily be "disabled from viewing" if a studio chooses to do so.

(actually, Blu-ray can be also if manufactured as such).

[csmitty]

That is pretty stupid reasoning. And if/when 1080p online rentals are avaliable i'll stop buying discs most likely. I buy HD DVDs now because the are cheaper than regular dvds and have stocked up on xbox hd dvd players. I also buy the blu ray of movies that I like and will watch multiple times. Unless its something I might watch and is only $10.

As far as capage one of my friends at school got a nice letter from charter saying he needed to quit doing what he was doing. But i think that was because of what he was downloading and not the quantity. I think he started using the neighbors internet after that. I used to late at night too sometimes. I p2p stuff all the time and havn't had a problem. viva de yarrrr

[MrCrowbar]

I buy quite a lot of music from independent labels, i.e. talented people that have not yet been "acquired" by some major company and forced to produce mass-marketable junk that's ultimately bad. Those people advertize on youTube and podcasts and you can download or order (i.e. get on physical media) their stuff from their web shop. Best of all: no DRM.

Here's two examples of people I bought everythig from:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PomplamooseMusic
http://www.youtube.com/user/pshukoff (nicepeter.com)



Independent Movie Studios are starting to do this too and I expect them to pup up more and more, especially with things like RED cameras. Stuff gets much cheaper to produce and there's no big company taking all the money (and credit) of the creative guys.

I don't own a TV since 2 years and don't miss it a bit. On the contrary, those things annoy me when I'm at other people's places and they keep it on at all times. I wouldn't mind a large flat screen display, i.e. a TV without tuner, speakers and digital image processors that mangle an otherwise good picture. Where can I get a 42" LCD that does that?

[Zadillo]

Yeah, seriously, it's like they still just don't get it.

We've now got a basic framework in place, and it seems like the main limiting factor now is no longer necessarily technology, but content rights.

If it wasn't obvious before, it should be obvious now - the future can and should be one in which ANY movie or music is available for purchase or rental or streaming or whatever. This idea of only making some stuff available while other stuff is pulled, or having some content at one store but not another, is ridiculous.

There's no reason not to make their entire libraries available; this isn't like old media stuff where you have to decide what to leave in print or let go out of print. If you want to put some restrictions like higher prices for new release stuff, fine, go ahead, but basically what they're doing now is telling consumers "Oh, we've decided this particular movie isn't going to be available to you at this time via this method; feel free to go buy a DVD or wait until we get our heads out of our asses".

[RTiii320]

LAME

I had this happen to me sort of as well, My buddy had downloaded a movie a few weeks backs and the other day I received a itunes gift card. When I decided to get that same movie it was no longer available! I thought he was lying about getting it on itunes because I could not find it anywhere!

i repeat

L A M E:apple:

[Michael CM1]

just shows that the big companies STILL don't know how to utilize the internet and this new market ....

What do you expect when they put people near retirement age in charge of this stuff? I have to educate my 62-year-old dad on most technology, and he will kinda get it on a basic level after awhile. My 60-year-old mom is hopeless. I can't even get her to use a Mac even though she keep complaining about how complicated this and that is on Windows.

People who want to pirate will pirate. Now I don't consider ripping a DVD that I already own pirating. Despite that whole DMCA, I bought the thing and I just want it in a different format. It's the exact same concept behind ripping CDs to MP3, and the music industry has benefitted from that because you now have people like me who actually listen to stuff. I hated carrying around even 24 CDs, so the use of iPods makes me spend more money on their stuff!

Let iTunes and other approved software (the studios can license this somehow) rip DVD movies to a computer and sync with media players. Have it rip in some DRM format, but allow us the same rights we have with iTunes. They're already kinda doing this with the digital copies. Sure, people will still pirate movies, but YOU CANNOT STOP THIS. Piracy will be around as long as there is stuff to be pirated.

[daddywags214]

Perhaps TV/Cable providers are pressuring (paying) movie studios to pull their content from online providers so that more people will watch them on TV. Perhaps TV/Cable providers are in turn being pressured by their advertisers. Darn greedy capitalists!

[garylapointe]

I've seen this happen with albums and/or songs in the past. They just aren't there any more.

Silly to me, since they don't take "shelf space" but if someone doesn't want Apple selling their music or movies, I guess that's up to them.

Gary

[/dev/toaster]

I think its painfully clearly, the movie studios don't want my money. Why else would they go to great lengths to make it so difficult for me to legitimately purchase content.

Then they sit there and complain about people ripping off their stuff on pirate bay. Well, what do you expect ... we live in a digital age where brick and mortar stores are quickly on their way to being a thing of the past. I am not amusing with being forced to go to a store if I want to watch a movie that has been just released. Just in this past week alone there was at least 5 movies I would have rented off the AppleTV *if* they were available. I also wanted to rent Hancock, but since they won't want people renting stuff in the first 2 weeks ... welp, guess what I did ? Nope, didn't bittorrent it ... just going to borrow it from a friend.

The movie industry is an unbelievably greedy industry with skeletons piloting it. Its time for them to embrace technology or close up shop.

I have said it countess times, I don't mind DRM ... just make it reasonable for me to legitimately acquire the content. Go ahead movie studios, keep pissing off your customers and continuing watching your profits plummet.

[gkarris]

I think its painfully clearly, the movie studios don't want my money. Why else would they go to great lengths to make it so difficult for me to legitimately purchase content.

Don't you have stores in San Fran? We have tons in Chicago (and corrupt Governers too ;) )


Well, what do you expect ... we live in a digital age where brick and mortar stores are quickly on their way to being a thing of the past..

Hmm, I just was at a suburb where along the road, there are 10 miles of brick-and-mortar stores... :eek:

[mikeinternet]

I guess this will just force more people to download free torrents.

good, more seeders.

[LethalWolfe]

Why do people keep talking about piracy when it has nothing to do w/what's going on? Distributors make more money selling exclusive rights to cable and TV networks than they do dealing w/iTMS so is it a surprise that the iTMS doesn't get preferential treatment?

From the CNET article linked to in the OP:
The situation comes down to basic dollars and cents. At this point, the revenue from TV deals dwarfs the money Netflix and iTunes generate. One recent study found that movie downloads make up only 0.06 percent of studio revenue, said Jan Sexton, an analyst with Adams Media Research. She said her firm estimates that the return is a little higher but is still tiny. Sexton said the studios can't be expected to dump these very lucrative release windows until the Internet sees much wider adoption.
0.06 percent. You aren't going to get anyone to radically alter their business model for 0.06 percent.

Things are changing but it's going to take many years. This isn't something that's just going to happen overnight.


Lethal

[bilbo--baggins]

Why do people keep talking about piracy when it has nothing to do w/what's going on? Distributors make more money selling exclusive rights to cable and TV networks than they do dealing w/iTMS so is it a surprise that the iTMS doesn't get preferential treatment?

From the CNET article linked to in the OP:

0.06 percent. You aren't going to get anyone to radically alter their business model for 0.06 percent.

Things are changing but it's going to take many years. This isn't something that's just going to happen overnight.


Lethal

Yes, very shortsighted. Trying to limit the growth of what is ultimately going to take over from mindless television.

When view on demand is considered normal, and scheduled programming a thing of the past, old fashioned TV will seem so arcane.

Mind you, I cannot stand radio - listening to someone elses choice of music. I'm increasingly finding the same with TV - I go weeks between watching something being broadcast on TV, most of my viewing is stuff I've recorded and transferred to my Apple TV.

[mattwolfmatt]

This reminds me of the Disney DVD model...movies like Pinnochio and Snow White and so on are only available for a short while, then they disappear. The result: every collector snatches them up while they're on the market. Soon I'm sure we'll hear that - one at a time - they're available on Blu-ray, but only through the end of the month! Then they're "back in the Disney vaults, forever!"

Also, is 6 positives and 100 negatives a macrumors record? I've never seen such a polarizing topic! Not even the Seinfeld Microsoft ads had this negative a reaction.

[pyramid6]

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't buy DVDs anymore. [I do buy CDs but that is because I want them in lossless format.] Most movies are crap, I don't have the time [and won't make time] to watch them, they take up space and can get ruined. When I do watch DVDs, it's through some online service. I don't own a landline phone, I don't have cable tv, and I don't watch broadcast tv. I haven't missed a show I wanted to watch. If I it need it on physical media, I can get it through NetFlix. I'm not alone in this. Media distribution is changing. iTunes is the largest music retailer, they are 100% online and digital. If anyone thinks that visual media isn't going to go the same way, they are mistaken. The only questions is will it be QT, Silverlight or Flash.

Also, I don't go to the movie theaters anymore.

[CaptainCannabis]

I always buy movies online, and download them through itunes.
But.. good reason to download them illegally now, if they **** with the customer, thats the price they have to pay.

[mattwolfmatt]

I always buy movies online, and download them through itunes.
But.. good reason to download them illegally now, if they **** with the customer, thats the price they have to pay.

Uh, if you buy them on itunes, you own them forever, no matter if they get taken off itunes or not.

Extra coolness points for using a fake curse word, though! :cool:

[surferfromuk]

I find this whole tedious pseudo-orwellian global market control syndrome a total drag. I really wish it'd just piss off and that we could have one global online store that sold everything with no territorial restrictions.

Have 50 of them with the exact same content if you want - I really don't care - I'll just use the one I like.


This jackass corporate ******** is a poor repeat of the CD-MP3 thing all over again.

[OriginalMacRat]

Uh, if you buy them on itunes, you own them forever, no matter if they get taken off itunes or not.

You do realize that those files are periodically checked by iTunes, right?

All it takes is for Apple to flip a bit on the server and your iTunes files bought from Apple won't play anymore.

DRM only lasts as long as it is allowed to. Not forever.

[pondie84]

Why do people keep talking about piracy when it has nothing to do w/what's going on? Distributors make more money selling exclusive rights to cable and TV networks than they do dealing w/iTMS so is it a surprise that the iTMS doesn't get preferential treatment?

From the CNET article linked to in the OP:

0.06 percent. You aren't going to get anyone to radically alter their business model for 0.06 percent.

Things are changing but it's going to take many years. This isn't something that's just going to happen overnight.


Lethal

Yes. But allowing people to buy content from itunes and allowing the content to be sold for broadcast on TV are not mutually exclusive as far as I'm aware. If the amount of people who download from itunes is really so insignificant as to make up 0.06 per cent of their revenue it's hard to imagine that it would impact on TV audiences that much so there would be nothing to complain about.

[cmwade77]

I can't imagine using 250 GB in one month. These must be people who do all the peer-to-peer stuff.
Actually, by the time you add up:
Taking Photos (I can take 100 GB of Photos in a month alone) and uploading all of them to your backup.
Doing online backups (I have two 500 GB External Drives and a 80 GB Internal drive on one computer and a 120 GB Internal drive on my laptop)
Using Skype
Emails (Web Based)
Downloading files (legally, such as programs from download.com)
Downloading music (again legally from itunes)
Downloading movies (again legally from itunes)
Playing online games
Remotely logging into your computer and using it.

It adds up fast, I have Comcast and I have yet to be shut off or contacted, but I know I must come close and I definitely would come closer if I didn't make extensive use of free wifi networks with my laptop.

[cmwade77]

You do realize that those files are periodically checked by iTunes, right?

All it takes is for Apple to flip a bit on the server and your iTunes files bought from Apple won't play anymore.

DRM only lasts as long as it is allowed to. Not forever.

Actually, if they tried that, there would be a ton of lawsuits (and justifiably so), bottom line is if I buy it, it's mine, period, now I can't go and sell copies of it or give it away to friends, but I can keep it as long as I want to. It's why I use firewalls, I only allow the information that I want to come in or go out.

[LethalWolfe]

Yes. But allowing people to buy content from itunes and allowing the content to be sold for broadcast on TV are not mutually exclusive as far as I'm aware. If the amount of people who download from itunes is really so insignificant as to make up 0.06 per cent of their revenue it's hard to imagine that it would impact on TV audiences that much so there would be nothing to complain about.
The 0.06% is the revenue the studio makes on the movie as a whole. What we don't know is is what percentage of the revenue of cable companies and TV networks is based around movies. I wound venture a guess that it's a good amount since the companies are obviously willing to pay for exclusive rights to distribute those films. Also, if it's a film that is shown during sweeps then the importance is much greater because sweeps is used as a basis for how much broadcasters charge for ad sales. For a multitude of reasons TV viewership is down, which means revenue is down, and especially in this current economic climate no one is going to leave any money on the table.

Once download numbers start picking up things will change, but like I said before it's going to take a long time. Hollywood has historically been slow to warm up to new distribution models and you can't expect an industry to ditch what works for something unproven at the drop of a hat.


Lethal

[MrCrowbar]

I've seen this happen with albums and/or songs in the past. They just aren't there any more.

Silly to me, since they don't take "shelf space" but if someone doesn't want Apple selling their music or movies, I guess that's up to them.

Gary

Well, there needs to be some way for the artists and producers to pull the content. Imagine you posted an emberassing video on youTube when you were totally drunk and were not able to delete it from youTube afterwards. Artists might change political views or something and like to have some controversial stuff removed.

What's happening here on iTunes is pure marketing though. The studios pull it from the online store to force people to watch it on live TV. This (theoretically) creates higher ratings, thus more money because more people are exposed to the commercials.

But then of course the middle-class (i.e. the people with disposable income) has TiVos and DVRs so that whole TV commercial thing is a dead-end in the long run.

[MrCrowbar]

Actually, if they tried that, there would be a ton of lawsuits (and justifiably so), bottom line is if I buy it, it's mine, period, now I can't go and sell copies of it or give it away to friends, but I can keep it as long as I want to. It's why I use firewalls, I only allow the information that I want to come in or go out.

Actually you don't own it, you have a licence to play it for private use. :cool:
If your CD is scratched up and won't play, you can send it it and they will give you a new one.

[jicon]

I'd like to have a little more transparency of the deals movie studios have made with Apple. A LOT of movies on the Canadian iTunes store have had the rental option dropped.

Of particular interest, no Pixar movies are rentable... only for purchase. Sounds to me that Mr. Jobs may be looking at the best revenue angle possible, hence no rent option available (?)

[eleven59]

these dinosaur studios with their dinosaur business models keep shooting themselves in the foot. they are missing out on opportunities to capaltalize on the future but are scared bc they judge us all to be crooks. in the long run i hope it destroys them and bankrupts them. good riddance!!

[mkrishnan]

I've seen this happen with albums and/or songs in the past. They just aren't there any more.

Actually, FWIW, I have a habit of leaving tons of songs that I never get around to buying in my Shopping Cart. I have maybe 60-70 songs in there. :o I put them there to remember to buy them later, but sometimes I don't want them anymore.

Of the ~70 songs in there, some 20-30 of them are not available anymore....

[mambodancer]

You do realize that those files are periodically checked by iTunes, right?

All it takes is for Apple to flip a bit on the server and your iTunes files bought from Apple won't play anymore.

DRM only lasts as long as it is allowed to. Not forever.

Really? And how exactly would that happen if I'm not connected to the intenet?

[mambodancer]

Actually, by the time you add up:
Taking Photos (I can take 100 GB of Photos in a month alone) and uploading all of them to your backup.
Doing online backups (I have two 500 GB External Drives and a 80 GB Internal drive on one computer and a 120 GB Internal drive on my laptop)
Using Skype
Emails (Web Based)
Downloading files (legally, such as programs from download.com)
Downloading music (again legally from itunes)
Downloading movies (again legally from itunes)
Playing online games
Remotely logging into your computer and using it.

It adds up fast, I have Comcast and I have yet to be shut off or contacted, but I know I must come close and I definitely would come closer if I didn't make extensive use of free wifi networks with my laptop.

Definitely not the typical user.

I've never heard of anybody uploading 100GB of photos a month unless they're....ohhh, now I see what kind of pictures you mean.

[charlituna]

I don't understand the reasoning for this at ALL. So instead of leaving the file up, where it could potentially make more money, they remove it because "it's going to be on TV?"



because the TV networks buy the rights so they can make money. but if you can download it and watch it without commercials, they don't make their money.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Perhaps TV/Cable providers are pressuring (paying) movie studios to pull their content from online providers so that more people will watch them on TV. Perhaps TV/Cable providers are in turn being pressured by their advertisers. Darn greedy capitalists!

It sounds more to me like they want me to stop renting their movies and start pirating them. What if I don't want to watch a movie on tv (replete with commercials, etc.)? Too bad? Head to the video store? WTF is the point of having an AppleTV if I can't rent movies with it? (well OK I also stream my music around the house, but still)

Companies just don't seem to EVER remember that the customer is supposed to be king. Like Burger King, you want it YOUR way, not their way. OTOH, this is kind of funny payback in a way considering Apple is all about doing it THEIR way too and screw the customers that want matte screens or expandable Macs, etc. But sadly in both cases, the consumer gets screwed. It's getting to the point where I'm starting not to blame people for using BitTorrent and what not. The companies would rather screw their customers over and drive them away than sell or rent them product and make money. It makes no "sane" logical sense what-so-ever. That doesn't drive you to watch cable. It drives you to get content for your AppleTV any place you can find it and you start feeling like the greedy companies are just getting their just dessert rather than feeling like a criminal because they make it so darn HARD to do the right thing (pulling products, ridiculous DRM schemes for music, etc.). Frankly, if I wanted to watch cable, I wouldn't have bought the darn ATV in the first place! It's being sold first and foremost as an HD rental device! :rolleyes:

But at least this article offers and explanation. When I tried to get an answer from Apple why I couldn't rent Superbad even though it's on the "Must See HD" list, they simply ignored me instead of telling me ANYTHING. That's just obscenely bad customer service. And people wonder why I kept rooting for Psystar. Apple customer support just plain sucks. The movie companies, etc. just plain suck too. Heck, I thought rentals were what they actually WANTED (PPV) but apparently not if it means licensing sales to cable outlets who DON'T want you renting, but watching their TV channel. Well the movie companies shouldn't be selling them exclusive distribution to begin with! Short of Disney, very few movie companies STOP SELLING DVDs just because they licensed the Family Channel to show Old Yeller.... (shakes head)

Why do people keep talking about piracy when it has nothing to do w/what's going on?

They keep talking about it because it seems more and more often like it's the consumer's ONLY 'recourse' to companies pushing them around (just like building a Hackintosh is the only recourse to Apple not offering a mid-range tower; you you either build your own or switch all your software to Windows which costs a fortune if you've been on the Mac platform for a long time). It shouldn't be this difficult to legally get content. Studios have no right to complain about piracy if they don't offer their material for sale or rental. They shouldn't be allowed to force me to buy cable tv or HBO in order to watch a movie. That's too much control over distribution and it will backfire on them.

Recent history has shown that the whole MP3 debacle of piracy was not because people WANT to be criminals but because the industry doesn't LISTEN to its customers. Once iTunes opened up and they offered per track offerings for a reasonable 99 cents, many of the people who once downloaded from Limewire or the old Napster suddenly started buying music again. They simply wanted an OPTION to buy the music they liked rather than pay ever increasing CD prices (manufacturing costs have gone down, yet CD prices keep going up up up) to get an entire album full of crap in order to get one good song. We've all bought those kinds of albums before. It sucks. And singles died out with the 45. Just try to find a single of a song even in the mid '90s. Maybe 1/100 had a CD single available.

[SeaFox]

When they say "Internet-related stores" then then mention Netflix, are they talking about the DVD rental part of Netflix, which is like a regular mom and pop rental business that they just said was not affected (except Netflix occurs over the mail), or were they talking about only the streaming on-demand NetFlix service?

[LethalWolfe]

It shouldn't be this difficult to legally get content. Studios have no right to complain about piracy if they don't offer their material for sale or rental. They shouldn't be allowed to force me to buy cable tv or HBO in order to watch a movie. That's too much control over distribution and it will backfire on them.
Watch it in a theater. Rent the DVD. Buy the DVD. Watch it on iTunes. Watch it on pay-per-view. Watch it on HBO. Watch it on regular TV. How, exactly, are you being denied a reasonable chance to watch a movie? Or, better yet, just fix the problem. All you have to do is create a viable business model, move to LA and become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams as you personally lead a seamless, overnight transition from 'old media' to 'new media'.

BTW, no one is forcing you watch or buy anything.


Lethal

[drichards]

Hence why I either only purchase DVD's or watch whatever is available (that day) for free on HULU.COM. I would be ticked to finally find time to watch a good movie and oops - it is no longer available.:eek:

Fancast.tv is great. It takes hulu, CBS, and various other resources and puts them all in front of you in one hi def experience.

[Kelmon]

This is absolutely THE dumbest thing I have heard in a while but it does explain what I have seen over the past months. I was going to buy an AppleTV next year but I'm not going to bother now. The combination of a variable selection of films and the stupid delay in making a film available to rent (it seems to be a month for the UK) means that it isn't competitive against other solutions.

What I don't understand the most is this: why does iTunes suffer from these restrictions but the likes of Blockbuster does not? What's the difference?

[matticus008]

Hence why I either only purchase DVD's or watch whatever is available (that day) for free on HULU.COM. I would be ticked to finally find time to watch a good movie and oops - it is no longer available.:eek:
The same thing happens with DVD stocks in stores, though. If you want to be sure you can watch it in the future, just buy it now. You can keep it on your shelf (or in iTunes, as the case may be) until you get around to watching it.
So are they saying that essentially there is a 'blackout' period when a movie will be shown on broadcast TV?
No. It is removed from online services once the rights are sold off to television networks, not just on the days it's being shown, but for the entire term of the agreement.
I don't understand the reasoning for this at ALL. So instead of leaving the file up, where it could potentially make more money, they remove it because "it's going to be on TV?"
That's the nature of their agreements with the networks and the advertisers that generate money for them. If they could get the same kind of money with non-exclusive deals, of course they'd do it. But exclusivity means more zeroes in the contract price.
If they want to reduce piracy, they've got a funny way of doing it.
As a few others have said, this has exactly nothing to do with piracy. It's about distribution agreements and who gets to make money.
If we're going to pay the same price for for both, we might as well get all the features. [...] I'm not sure how the actual DVD/packaging costs compared to the online/bandwidth costs.
You are, and always have been, paying for the convenience. The products were never meant to be comparable. You get less, but you get it now.
Why do people keep talking about piracy when it has nothing to do w/what's going on? Distributors make more money selling exclusive rights to cable and TV networks than they do dealing w/iTMS so is it a surprise that the iTMS doesn't get preferential treatment?
Exactly. The revenue from broadcast rights is, despite proclamations of TV being "dead", still astronomical. They often demand exclusive broadcast rights, which means no Internet sources or competing networks. Until the money at broadcast networks dries up or until the profit from online distribution skyrockets, little is likely to change.
Yes, very shortsighted. Trying to limit the growth of what is ultimately going to take over from mindless television.
It's not an active intent to deprive anyone. Studios do plenty of shady things, but this is simple business. Someone is waving a multimillion-dollar check in their face, and getting it means giving up the profits on online channels, which don't even come close. Once the period of demand fades from broadcasting deals and the contracts expire, these films will resurface in VOD and online sources.
You do realize that those files are periodically checked by iTunes, right?
No they're not. If your machine is authorized, the file plays. You do not need an Internet connection after purchase to play iTMS files, and Apple can't simply shut down your music or movies individually.

[Don't panic]

and with yet another outstandingly obtuse move, the movie industry once again fails to surprise its costumers.

[csmitty]

Actually you don't own it, you have a licence to play it for private use. :cool:
If your CD is scratched up and won't play, you can send it it and they will give you a new one.

Does that actually work? I find it hard to believe.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Watch it in a theater. Rent the DVD. Buy the DVD. Watch it on iTunes. Watch it on pay-per-view. Watch it on HBO. Watch it on regular TV. How, exactly, are you being denied a reasonable chance to watch a movie? Or, better yet, just fix the problem. All you have to do is create a viable business model, move to LA and become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams as you personally lead a seamless, overnight transition from 'old media' to 'new media'.

BTW, no one is forcing you watch or buy anything.

Lethal

Watch it on iTunes? Have you even been reading this thread? The whole point is they're NOT AVAILABLE any more on iTunes. And telling me I SHOULD have watched it in the theater for the two weeks it probably was available to watch there isn't reasonable at all. Maybe I didn't have time. Maybe I didn't want to pay $11 a person and $7 for popcorn to have someone kick me in the back of my seat. The WHOLE POINT of AppleTV is that I can rent a movie at home at MY convenience. But you being a Smart Alec and parading around the usual fanboy mantras of no one is forcing you to buy this or that or Apple products isn't a solution. It's just a way to irritate already irritated people even further.

But yes, I can solve their online problems very easily. Remove DRM and keep the music and movies available indefinitely. Problems solved. People will buy/rent indefinitely and not complain. What part of THAT is unreasonable? I mean if you're going to participate in a thread about movies disappearing from iTunes, maybe you could explain why they are disappearing since your logic appears to be that it's reasonable for me to travel back in time to watch it at the theater.


That's the nature of their agreements with the networks and the advertisers that generate money for them. If they could get the same kind of money with non-exclusive deals, of course they'd do it. But exclusivity means more zeroes in the contract price.

As a few others have said, this has exactly nothing to do with piracy. It's about distribution agreements and who gets to make money.


So your argument (once again as it always does) boils down to it's good for the bottom line of some company so screw what the customer needs or wants. But then when the customer goes and pirates the movie because they won't sell it to the customer, they have a right to complain? How do you complain about losing sales to someone you don't want to sell it to in the first place??? Right, I forgot that logic is never a part of your solutions.

Not everyone has the money to immediately go to the movie theater or to buy a Disney movie right then. But it's OK for them to remove that movie for sale or rental so that when you are able to buy or rent it, you CANNOT. And yet you then conclude that piracy has NOTHING to do with it. Right-O-Matey. You're a genius. All those people pirating on Napster had NOTHING to do with the fact the music industry WANTED to sell CDs and the customer wanted to buy individual songs online. It had NOTHING to do with it and that's why iTunes sales went through the roof and piracy declined when a legitimate online sale was made available.

I'm sorry, but many of you on here are just as 'old' as the executives making these decisions. You don't 'get' online either. It's all about CONVENIENCE for the consumer. THAT is why companies like Amazon and even eBay are so darn popular. Convenience. There's NOTHING convenient about having to drive to a store to buy a standard definition DVD when I can RENT the HD version with an AppleTV...except that I cannot because the studios pulled it so they can try and force me to watch it on HBO, which I do not subscribe to and do not want because I never watch it because what I want to watch is never on WHEN I want to watch it. Once again, it comes down to the studios trying to get you to buy/watch WHEN they want you to instead of when you the consumer WANTS to. But isn't that what watching movies and listening to music is all about? You do it when you're INTERESTED not when it's made available. Imagine a restaurant trying to force meatloaf down your throat when you want to eat pork chops! It's absurd. Give the customer what he wants and more often than not, he'll buy/rent it in a legal fashion. Don't give the customer what he wants and he'll try to get even. It's that simple.

Legal has very little to do with it as Napster shows. Consumers that feel they are being ROYALLY RIPPED OFF have no compassion for greedy companies that act only in their own profitable interests. Give a fair price and make fair sales. Be greedy and get screwed. It's the capitalistic way, after all. But some people pay NO attention to consumers at all. Maybe that's why the Big Three auto companies are in trouble right now. They didn't listen to consumers and kept making gas guzzling trucks and SUVs long after demand for fuel economy went up and now they're in the hole.

I should feel SO sorry for them just as I should feel so sorry for Disney making billions while they won't offer Wall-E to rent period on iTunes. Fine. I won't watch Wall-E. Screw Disney. DVDs are dead and I'm not paying $25 at this stage for a Blu-ray movie I have not even seen yet. And good luck trying to find a place to rent Blu-ray around here. So why buy a Blu-ray player at this stage? I haven't. I've got AppleTV to tide me over. Except certain companies don't want to rent (and you can't buy movies in HD with iTunes) over AppleTV or pull their movies (like Superbad) before I even get a chance to watch it (I do have other movies to watch and other things in life to do, after all, believe it or not). That's OK. Buy an AppleTV. Buy a Blu-ray. Buy an outdated HD-DVD even just in case they decide to release ONLY for that format. Buy both an Xbox 360 AND a PS3 in case some game company only wants to release for one or the other. It's OK. People have unlimited money and stupid companies should be rewarded for stupid behaviors.

Shhhh. Don't tell most AppleTV owners they are not legally allowed to transfer their DVDs into AppleTV format so they don't need to pull out the DVD any longer and can just push a button or two and it starts to play anywhere in the house. That's about CONVENIENCE also, but it's not actually legal (DMCA and all).

Does that actually work? I find it hard to believe.

They will do no such thing. The companies want their cake and want to eat it to. They license you only that music on that particular single disc media ONLY. You are not allowed to transfer it, back it up (unless through the analog outputs) or otherwise toy with it. If your baby sister spreads super glue all over it or breaks it in half, they expect you to buy a new one. Otherwise, you would be able to get free CDs for all your old records. Send them the LP and they give you the CD (or legally let you copy one) since you have "license" to listen to that album. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. They want you to pay and keep on paying until your dying breaths.

Now WHY is it legal to both "sell" a disc and yet not own its contents and yet NOT be able to get a replacement at cost if it breaks? That's a good question. They should be able to only do one or the other. Either you own it and can do what you want with that copy OR you have the right to watch/listen to it on ANY medium for the rest of your life. They need to make up their minds which model they want to use. They should not be allowed to do both at the same time (i.e. license it ONLY for that particular copy on that particular single medium). Music is music. The medium has nothing to do with it. It's simply a transfer method. So I'd be OK with a license to listen to something like Dark Side of the Moon PERIOD (any time any format). But if you're going to sell me a single copy and that's it then it's a SALE and I should be allowed to treat it as my property (i.e. play or lend it for the whole neighborhood if I want to). The consumer deserves SOME protections in this country.

[VoR]

I'm pretty addicted to reading this forum, sighing and slapping my forehead after every post - that's a great one though.

Although I think you're dumb for buying an atv considering the alternatives and blame you for fueling all the incompetence in all the industries involved in this subject.

[matticus008]

So your argument (once again as it always does) boils down to it's good for the bottom line of some company so screw what the customer needs or wants.
Take your editorializing elsewhere. Your constant need to make everything a verbose "us vs. them" is tiresome, especially laced with its alternating claims of socialism and conservatism to suit your current outrage.
But then when the customer goes and pirates the movie because they won't sell it to the customer, they have a right to complain?
The customer doesn't have a right to it.
How do you complain about losing sales to someone you don't want to sell it to in the first place??? Right, I forgot that logic is never a part of your solutions.
Where is the logical link between a company not selling something the way you want it, and you subsequently just taking it anyway?
But it's OK for them to remove that movie for sale or rental so that when you are able to buy or rent it, you CANNOT.
Um, yes. It's their movie. They can take it off the shelf whenever they want.
And yet you then conclude that piracy has NOTHING to do with it. Right-O-Matey. You're a genius.
Explain what possible anti-piracy motivation a studio would have in removing titles from online stores.
Once again, it comes down to the studios trying to get you to buy/watch WHEN they want you to instead of when you the consumer WANTS to.
You think the studios care when you watch something? All they care about is getting your money.
Imagine a restaurant trying to force meatloaf down your throat when you want to eat pork chops! It's absurd.
What? If that's not the asinine essence of your screed, I don't know what is.
I should feel SO sorry for them just as I should feel so sorry for Disney making billions while they won't offer Wall-E to rent period on iTunes. Fine. I won't watch Wall-E.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Now WHY is it legal to both "sell" a disc and yet not own its contents and yet NOT be able to get a replacement at cost if it breaks? That's a good question. They should be able to only do one or the other.
Not really. It's exactly the same with all products. You don't own the IP in your toaster any more than you do your software--the difference is that the relative value of IP is higher in the software. The physical disc is sold to you--it's yours, and that makes you responsible for taking care of it. You're allowed to back it up; in most cases you're able to get discounted replacement media for breakages and damage, particularly as you get outside the sub-$50 disposable range. In purely digital distribution, you can simply download it again or restore from a backup.

This is, in fact, an improvement over plain goods--you normally have to repurchase everything else you break.

[LethalWolfe]

Watch it on iTunes? Have you even been reading this thread? The whole point is they're NOT AVAILABLE any more on iTunes.
Watch it on iTunes before it gets removed. If figured that last part was pretty obvious just like you'd have to watch it at the theater before it gets removed, watch it on pay-per-view before it gets removed, and/or watch on it broadcast TV before it gets removed.

And telling me I SHOULD have watched it in the theater for the two weeks it probably was available to watch there isn't reasonable at all. Maybe I didn't have time. Maybe I didn't want to pay $11 a person and $7 for popcorn to have someone kick me in the back of my seat.
I'm not telling you you should've done anything. I'm merely pointing out that there are many different opportunities to watch a movie. FWIW, I've almost completely stopped going to movie theaters for the reasons you mentioned.

But you being a Smart Alec and parading around the usual fanboy mantras of no one is forcing you to buy this or that or Apple products isn't a solution. It's just a way to irritate already irritated people even further.

You aren't the only that's irritated (although we are irritated for different reasons) and I was only being a partial smart-ass. I mean, I'm dead serious that if you can create a viable business model to quickly transition from old to new media distribution you'll be a very rich individual. The part I wasn't dead serious about is that the people here b*tching about the 'dinosaur movie studios' actually have enough knowledge of the industry to understand what is going on, why it's going on, and how things need to change before a viable (key word here) internet-based distribution model can really mature. Armchair quarterbacking is easy which is why anyone can do it.

I mean if you're going to participate in a thread about movies disappearing from iTunes, maybe you could explain why they are disappearing since your logic appears to be that it's reasonable for me to travel back in time to watch it at the theater.
Read my posts or the article in the OP and you'll see why the movies are getting pulled from iTunes.


Lethal

[/dev/toaster]

Don't you have stores in San Fran? We have tons in Chicago (and corrupt Governers too ;) )

Tons ... but its very silly to have to go out to a store just to get a movie that could be downloaded otherwise. Not to mention, I have no need for all the extra packaging that comes with movies. I have quite a number of boxes that have just DVD cases in them, over 500. All my DVDs are in smaller easier to carry and store cases. Most of them are in digital form with easy access.

I like background noise on the weekends when I am working on side projects. I want easy access from my remote. Sometimes while trying to relax on the couch I start watching 1 movie and then decided I want to watch something else, I enjoy that convince.

Hmm, I just was at a suburb where along the road, there are 10 miles of brick-and-mortar stores... :eek:

Sure, many businesses it makes sense .. but for some its dead and heading down hill. Circuit city went under because people aren't buying electronics in the store, and why should they. When I purchased my Mac Pro I went to Best Buy and researched the monitor I wanted to get. I quickly realized the markup was like ~$130 over newegg. Take a wild guess what I did.

Same thing goes for DVDs and Bluray. Why spend $39 for a movie at Best Buy when I can order it from Amazon for $22. Why order it from Amazon when I can download it from iTunes and start watching it in 5 minutes.

There are many things stores make sense for, clothes, cars, etc. Media however is not one of them. I can't even begin to remember the last time I bought a CD from a store. The chances of me buying one in a store are *VERY* _*VERY*_ slim to none. If I can't purchase it legitimately ... I will just obtain it from other means, such as legally borrowing and copying it from a friend.

Either way, they lose when they don't wake up and join the digital age.

[cmonster]

Time to go back to downloading movies from bit torrent!

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Take your editorializing elsewhere. Your constant need to make everything a verbose "us vs. them" is tiresome, especially laced with its alternating claims of socialism and conservatism to suit your current outrage.

Hey, you first. You think I'm not tired of you pushing your agendas and beliefs down my throat every time I make a comment? Get over yourself. Your opinions and beliefs are no more valid than anyone else's.


The customer doesn't have a right to it.


That's the problem. In your world, the consumer has no "rights" PERIOD.


Where is the logical link between a company not selling something the way you want it, and you subsequently just taking it anyway?


The logical link is pretty simple, but I'm certain you won't get it any more than the music industry didn't get the original Napster (EVERYONE is a thief!) versus iTunes (OK they're not thieves; they're simply not going to let themselves get ripped off being forced to buy an entire album of CRAP to get ONE good song). It boils down to this, though. It's not logical for someone to complain about "lost sales" due to piracy when they refuse to SELL the item. You cannot do both at the same time because one cancels the other out. If you want a "sale" you have to SELL. I'm sure that went way over your head, though.


Um, yes. It's their movie. They can take it off the shelf whenever they want.


The next step will be, they can disable it so your purchased copy won't play in your own house anymore because they want you to buy HBO. You'll be all for it because the discs or other format will come with a small print disclaimer that says the license you agreed to when you bought me says they're allowed to do that. I'm sure you are for gun control, etc. also so long as someone passes the law. In other words, you're all for LAWS regardless if they're fair or even stupid laws. It doesn't matter to you. You make no differentiation what-so-ever.


Explain what possible anti-piracy motivation a studio would have in removing titles from online stores.


I can explain it AGAIN, but you will IGNORE it again. But since you asked.... The music industry cried about "lost sales" due to piracy, but they offered no option but to buy CDs (I'm sure you agreed 100% with that viewpoint. Either buy the CD or do without). Once iTunes opened, a great many people stopped pirating and started buying songs for 99 cents. Why would they do that if they're just immoral no good thieves? In your world, there is no valid explanation because there is no relationship between piracy and online availability. Any rational person can see that what really happens is that people do the right thing when there's a product available online. So like Napster versus iTunes, if the studios make a movie available for rent and/or purchase, people will buy them. If not, they MIGHT buy them on the format they WANT them to buy it on (be it Blu-ray, HBO or DVD) or they might just pull a Napster and download it off Bit Torrent or whatever anyway. You can call them thieves if you want, but statistics showed that over half the United States (let alone the world) are in fact, thieves by that viewpoint. Get the prisons ready. I hope your taxes can support that large a prison population. Or the studios (be they music or movie) can make their product available in a reasonable manner for a reasonable price and the problem disappears.


You think the studios care when you watch something? All they care about is getting your money.

What? If that's not the asinine essence of your screed, I don't know what is.

That's how it's supposed to work.


You're wrong, though. If they wanted my money they'd offer their product to buy or rent, not pull it from the shelves and then cry that people are downloading something they no longer feel like selling or renting. Clearly, they do NOT want my money. They want HBO's money or whomever will buy exclusive rights to it. Sorry, but I don't want HBO.


Not really. It's exactly the same with all products. You don't own the IP in your toaster any more than you do your software--the difference is that the relative value of IP is higher in the software. The physical disc is sold to you--it's yours, and that makes you responsible for taking care of it. You're allowed to back it up; in most cases you're able to get discounted replacement media for breakages and damage, particularly as you get outside the sub-$50 disposable range. In purely digital distribution, you can simply download it again or restore from a backup.

Sorry, but you're NOT allowed to back it up. Read the DMCA. Stop wasting my time.

Watch it on iTunes before it gets removed. If figured that last part was pretty obvious just like you'd have to watch it at the theater before it gets removed, watch it on pay-per-view before it gets removed, and/or watch on it broadcast TV before it gets removed.


There's a problem with that suggestion. How am I supposed to know when it's going to be removed? Apple does not advertise or state when they are going to pull a movie or song. They give ZERO notice. I figured I had a lot of time to get around to renting Superbad. After all, I had a lot of movies to rent when I first got my AppleTV. Apple never once stated that ANY movies would be removed from the rental category. Their own "Must See HD" lists imply you CAN rent certain movies when in fact you cannot. Writing Apple does not good. I wrote them several times asking what happened. They did not reply even once with ANY answer. Some movies have disappeared within a matter of weeks. Some are not available to rent period (look at ANY recent Disney film; NONE are available to rent) so the argument doesn't hold water in that regard either.

As for being stupid to buy AppleTV, I bought them first and foremost to stream my music collection around the house (alternatives like Sonus don't handle things like movies period in that regard). So it's not a total waste regardless, but Apple IS pushing it now as a rental and purchase medium. Maybe that's a mistake as clearly despite being the largest online music retailer, they have very little influence over the studios. In fact, the studios resent their success even though they're making them money. I guess it's never ENOUGH money to keep them happy. The consumer pays the price every time, unfortunately.

[charlituna]

everyone does realize that the networks can't buy the rights to a show for life. which means that once the window of opportunity is over, the movies will likely pop back up on itunes etc.

[LethalWolfe]

There's a problem with that suggestion. How am I supposed to know when it's going to be removed? Apple does not advertise or state when they are going to pull a movie or song. They give ZERO notice. I figured I had a lot of time to get around to renting Superbad. After all, I had a lot of movies to rent when I first got my AppleTV. Apple never once stated that ANY movies would be removed from the rental category. Their own "Must See HD" lists imply you CAN rent certain movies when in fact you cannot. Writing Apple does not good. I wrote them several times asking what happened. They did not reply even once with ANY answer. Some movies have disappeared within a matter of weeks. Some are not available to rent period (look at ANY recent Disney film; NONE are available to rent) so the argument doesn't hold water in that regard either.
Considering Apple knows that they only have the titles for a limited time it is unfortunate that they don't make that info public. I know if I used iTMS for movies and had a bunch of stuff I wanted to watch just vanish I'd be pretty irritated too. Disney has always, and probably will always, be 'protective' of it's movies and only release the classics for purchase every few years to keep demand high.


Maybe that's a mistake as clearly despite being the largest online music retailer, they have very little influence over the studios. In fact, the studios resent their success even though they're making them money. I guess it's never ENOUGH money to keep them happy. The consumer pays the price every time, unfortunately.
The studios are weary of Apple becoming the center of the universe and I don't blame them. I like my Mac, I like my Final Cut, I might even get an iPhone but I don't want Apple to be the only player, or the only viable player, in online distribution anymore than I want Best Buy to be the only place I can buy consumer electronics or Borders the only place I can buy a book. Competition in the market place is good for consumers.

As far as money goes, again, online downloads generate about 0.06% of the revenue a studio gets for its films. In contrast, ABC paid around $70 million each for the broadcast rights to ''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' and ''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" for 10 years of exclusivity. $70 million per film covers about half the production budget. If iTMS covered half the production cost of a film they'd have a lot of leverage too.

everyone does realize that the networks can't buy the rights to a show for life. which means that once the window of opportunity is over, the movies will likely pop back up on itunes etc.
But no one knows how long the broadcasters get exclusive rights and whether or not another network will buy up the exclusive rights once they become available. For example, I think the cable channel Spike paid around 70 million dollars for the broadcast rights to all 6 Star Wars films for 6 years.


Lethal

[Scarpad]

this is pretty much why electronic Distribution sucks. And why despite it being long in the tooth (well DVD anyway) distibution on Physical Media, is still the way to go. I don't want to be told when I can and cannot rent or purchase a movie.

[matticus008]

Hey, you first. You think I'm not tired of you pushing your agendas and beliefs down my throat every time I make a comment?
[...]
That's the problem. In your world, the consumer has no "rights" PERIOD.
Agendas and beliefs? I'm describing to you how the world works, and your response is always the tired go-to that I'm "against" "consumer rights". Nowhere have I ever suggested to you what my personal opinion is on the matter, unless it is expressly labeled "I think" or "in my opinion". Guess what? This, like every other consumer rights rant you make, has little to do with consumer rights and everything to do with you wanting property rights you have no entitlement to.

"Consumer rights" have nothing to do with corporate distribution agreements between the entities wholly owning the properties and the entities seeking an assignment of rights. Your consumer rights aren't being violated here any more than when your local supermarket decides to stop stocking a certain brand of cookies.

The only "agenda" I'm pushing is my utter contempt for histrionic whiners of any persuasion.
It's not logical for someone to complain about "lost sales" due to piracy when they refuse to SELL the item. You cannot do both at the same time because one cancels the other out. If you want a "sale" you have to SELL.
I'm fairly confident that every product you're complaining about is actually for sale. You're skipping the part where it is for sale and you simply don't like the terms.
In other words, you're all for LAWS regardless if they're fair or even stupid laws.
Again, your mistake is that I'm advocating my personal beliefs. I'm simply pointing out the colossal errors in your representations of "fact" and "reality".
I can explain it AGAIN, but you will IGNORE it again. But since you asked.... The music industry cried about "lost sales" due to piracy, but they offered no option but to buy CDs (I'm sure you agreed 100% with that viewpoint. Either buy the CD or do without).
You're confusing "explanation" with "unrelated rant". It's not being ignored--it's simply inapplicable.

The distribution agreements behind this have exactly nothing to do with piracy prevention.
Sorry, but you're NOT allowed to back it up. Read the DMCA. Stop wasting my time.
Please read the entire Copyright Act and stop wasting everyone else's, especially when it involves a flimsy jab on a topic in which I'm clearly more sophisticated. A backup is archival. A complete, DRM-intact backup is wholly permitted by law, DMCA included.
There's a problem with that suggestion. How am I supposed to know when it's going to be removed? Apple does not advertise or state when they are going to pull a movie or song.
They don't KNOW when it will happen. It happens when the studio signs an agreement. If you can think of a way to advertise unknown future events, please, share it. You'll be wealthy.

[czachorski]

I'm fairly confident that every product you're complaining about is actually for sale. You're skipping the part where it is for sale and you simply don't like the terms.

Amen. The fallacy that you have pointed out is a gaping hole in almost every argument I have seen made like the one you just refuted. Thanks. It never ceases to astound me how confused so many people are on what "rights" they have.

[pubwvj]

This makes iTunes movies less useful. To be useful it would have all movies at prices that reflect their values, e.g., new releases would start out high anticipating demand and then drop. Slow sellers would drop even more. But if iTunes is going to just be a temporary release place for movies it isn't where I'm going to bother looking for movies since new releases is only a tiny part of the movies I'm interested in.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Agendas and beliefs? I'm describing to you how the world works....

This, like every other consumer rights rant you make, has little to do with consumer rights and everything to do with you wanting property rights you have no entitlement to.

The only "agenda" I'm pushing is my utter contempt for histrionic whiners of any persuasion.



Your "utter contempt" bit says it all. You have utter contempt for ANYONE that disagrees with your views or beliefs about "how the world works". You cannot acknowledge that in order to change the world to make it better (for the people, not just the fat cats you love so much) you have to speak out against the current status quo "crap" that pervades society. Centuries of injustice, prejudice and the rich trying to dictate rules to the middle and lower classes are slowly are changing and you cannot stand it. You seem to think it's the rich's god given right to dictate how and when everyone else can breathe and at what cost. Worse yet, your massive ego doesn't allow any possibility of being anything but 100% right all the time even when you're wrong so it really is a waste of time to converse with you. So this will be my last reply to your senseless posts.



I'm fairly confident that every product you're complaining about is actually for sale. You're skipping the part where it is for sale and you simply don't like the terms.


You clearly did not read the part where I said I wanted to RENT it (in HD on AppleTV seeing as that is the device I own). But then you have this habit of just skipping everything that doesn't make you look like you know what you're talking about.


Again, your mistake is that I'm advocating my personal beliefs. I'm simply pointing out the colossal errors in your representations of "fact" and "reality".


Where am I talking about "fact and "reality" ??? You mistake complaints about unfair or greedy driven systems for descriptions of reality.


The distribution agreements behind this have exactly nothing to do with piracy prevention.


You are clearly wrong. The Napster versus iTunes case and statistics thereof proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Where you offer statements declaring how great you are and how you're never wrong and are far more sophisticated than those you disparage, I offer PROOF to back up my statements. You offer no proof what-so-ever. Just stating you are right does not constitute any form of proof. It only proves you are a blowhard.


Please read the entire Copyright Act and stop wasting everyone else's, especially when it involves a flimsy jab on a topic in which I'm clearly more sophisticated.


Just listen to yourself. "I'm clearly more sophisticated". LOL. You are something alright, but sophisticated isn't the word I'd use.


A backup is archival. A complete, DRM-intact backup is wholly permitted by law, DMCA included.


Maybe your "sophisticated" self could explain how one can make a backup of a DVD without violating the tampering with copy protection clauses of the DMCA. It's not possible. What you cannot copy you cannot backup. What you bypass or break is a violation of the DMCA. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Why am I not surprised?


They don't KNOW when it will happen. It happens when the studio signs an agreement. If you can think of a way to advertise unknown future events, please, share it. You'll be wealthy.

Sorry, but Apple knows at least weeks in advance of when it will have to pull a movie. These agreements never take effect over night. They could then add that to the movie's description as they do the "available to rent" box. But for starters, they could at least start answering their e-mails asking why movies start disappearing for unknown reasons. They can't even do that much. You trying to defend that kind of customer service behavior is laughable at best but then so are most of your arguments. I'm done wasting my time with you. You are not worth it.

[charlituna]

folks, another issue to consider. right now the removal is based on the networks claiming that itunes is basically another network. for all we know, Apple is already working on a counter claim that they are in fact not another broadcast network at all but more just an digital version of best buy etc. if they are and they are successful with the claim we may find the movies coming back up at least for purchase (they might have to remove rentals during such conflict periods but then again if they can claim a blockbuster defense maybe not)

[matticus008]

Your "utter contempt" bit says it all. You have utter contempt for ANYONE that disagrees with your views or beliefs about "how the world works".
That is absolutely and utterly bogus. There are plenty of posters on this forum with whom I disagree and have perfectly productive debates. And, once again, my opinions and beliefs are not my description of how the system works, nor has that description ever been inaccurate.

The dramatic whiners and ones who feel the need to reduce everything to polemics are not among them. There is no point in attacking someone's description in a sad attempt to paint them as someone with "beliefs" and "agendas" so you have something to rail against emotionally.
You cannot acknowledge that in order to change the world to make it better (for the people, not just the fat cats you love so much) you have to speak out against the current status quo "crap" that pervades society.
You know, I spend most of my time dealing with "small fish" and industry-internals. In neither case is there a "corporate" "side" to take. If you'd actually bother to pay attention, you will see that I correct mistaken notions and interpretations on both "sides" around here, and do so consistently.

I am quite tired of you intimating otherwise in a cheap attempt to draw polemical lines around flimsy arguments, padding them with absurd and irrelevant tirades to make them look substantial.
You clearly did not read the part where I said I wanted to RENT it (in HD on AppleTV seeing as that is the device I own).
And this changes anything, how?
You are clearly wrong. The Napster versus iTunes case and statistics thereof proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
What does Napster have to do with distribution agreements between content providers? These agreements and their exclusivity terms predate Napster, predate the Internet, and predate the entire piracy debate itself. Or is Napster somehow proof of deals between movie studios and ABC in the 1960s, too, in a case of time-traveling inanity?
Maybe your "sophisticated" self could explain how one can make a backup of a DVD without violating the tampering with copy protection clauses of the DMCA.
The DMCA does not apply to users making lawful, archival backups. Moreover, no one has even tried to sue a private individual for that reason.
What you bypass or break is a violation of the DMCA. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Why am I not surprised?
Because your accuracy and knowledge in that is as limited as everything else you've had to say in this protracted personal fight against me.

17 USC 1201(a)(1)(B):
"The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) [the anti-circumvention provision] shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works" (emphasis added)

17 USC 1201(c):
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

The DMCA is not the best law, but it is not the evil that incompetent armchair lawyers make it out to be.
You trying to defend that kind of customer service behavior
I haven't once mentioned customer service, much less taken a side. Your assumption about the kind of notice given is baseless, but I never said that I disagreed that Apple should put up a notice when it finds out it has to pull a title--though that still only helps you if you visit the store in that final few days.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

And this changes anything, how?

(sigh) I see I'm making a liar out of myself by responding once more, but I feel several things need to be made clear once and for all.

It changes things because there's a very real price difference between buying something and renting it. You are suggesting that it's OK that movies are pulled from iTunes because I can go out and buy a movie on DVD in standard definition (which I do not want) or have to buy a Blu-ray player and then buy the movie for $25+ OR drive 50 miles to the nearest Blockbuster that rents Blu-ray movies when all I want to do is watch a movie like Superbad in HD off AppleTV on iTunes for $4.99 (or $3.99). The DIFFERENCE is both cost and convenience. I have a 93" screen. I don't want to watch standard definition any longer. I tend to watch movies ONCE unless I really like them a lot so renting make much more sense than buying movies. AppleTV provided a very viable appreciated model to watch movies then at $4.99 for a new HD movie rental in an area with little Blu-ray support at this time and very few movie rental places in general. The idea I should get in my car and drive an hour each way to a place that rents HD movies just because some company decided to remove their movies from iTunes creates a poor customer satisfaction level.



What does Napster have to do with distribution agreements between content providers?


I'll answer the question, but you seem to have magically forgotten the previous topic at hand, which was what does piracy have to do with such agreements. The original Napster versus a store like iTunes is the piracy example. The link is established between PIRACY and AVAILABILITY and the CONSUMER's behavior thereof through that example and it has been noted by the news many times. The (original) Napster was accused of being a major piracy hub for music. After being disbanded in its original incarnation, it was followed up by Limewire and Bit Torrent, which are both still active today. The news regularly accused the US of being a "Piracy Nation" with polled estimates at well over 50% of the population having downloaded illegal music. But the percentages of people pirating music DROPPED in a VERY significant fashion when online stores like iTunes opened up making it easy to purchase LEGITIMATE online music for a reasonable price (typically 99 cents). In other words, it became clear that given a choice between being a criminal and paying for music, most of the supposed criminals were willing to pay for their music. So why did they do it? They were NOT willing to spend $18+ on a CD for ONE song, however (i.e. people take action of some kind when they feel they are being utterly ripped off; furthermore most people make a distinction between digital COPYING and actual material theft as does the law, which is why it's called 'copyright' law and not THEFT except by those out there that either don't understand or don't believe there is a difference).

The point is that the music industry failed to make online song-by-song music AVAILABLE and so people took matters into their own hands. Call them criminals anyway if you wish, but it's beside the point. What this example shows is that IF companies make their products available for reasonable prices, people will BUY them. If they do NOT make them available (say by removing them from online purchase availability such as the iTunes example stated in this thread), many people will pirate them rather than be forced to buy or watch it on a format they have NO interest in (be it Blu-ray or HBO, it doesn't matter). The lesson here is if you give the consumer what he wants, he'll reward you with his support. If you ignore what the consumer wants, then you will pay the consequences (be it no sales or piracy). THAT is the lesson of Napster versus iTunes.

You can say that they shouldn't behave that way, but this is a report of the way people behave much in the way National Geographic would report how animals behave. If a company wants to make sales and not tick off their potential consumers, they need to make decisions that take the consumer into account, not disregard them entirely for a quick sale to another company. Yet, that is their choice. What doesn't make sense, however, is when they COMPLAIN about such "loss of sales" when in fact they are not making it EASY to buy their product. Ignore the consumer and he will not buy your product. It's that simple.

Is that clear enough yet or is my link of piracy to company distribution agreements still not plain enough for you? Is what I'm saying stupid to your eyes or what? Does the fact that even members of these forums openly stating they are going back to Bit Torrent to get movies since they aren't available on iTunes any longer not an indication of such a link?

Geeze, I can't wait to see your reply that grinds that simple concept into twisted shreds and tries to make it say something stupid instead of what it actually says. That seems to be your specialty.


These agreements and their exclusivity terms predate Napster, predate the Internet, and predate the entire piracy debate itself. Or is Napster somehow proof of deals between movie studios and ABC in the 1960s, too, in a case of time-traveling inanity?


WTF?! Do you even know what this thread is about? It's about ONLINE availability of movies and in a related fashion, music. Are you suggesting that iTunes and the Internet existed in the 1960's? Did the VCR for that matter? NO. The MANNER the public uses will depend on the state of technology (the path of least resistance). The fact that a lack of home recording and playback technology in the '60s promoted more movie ticket sales has NOTHING TO DO with iTunes availability and the public's reaction in 2008!

This remark just goes to show HOW FAR off course you are willing to go to steer around the actual issues just so your argument some way some how still holds a bit of water. Unfortunately, it's obvious to all that 1960 legal agreements have NOTHING TO DO with ones in 2008 because the world has changed.


The DMCA does not apply to users making lawful, archival backups. Moreover, no one has even tried to sue a private individual for that reason.


The devil is in the details, not the surface bits you quote, but ignore the whole.

Regarding the legality of bypassing CSS for ANY proposed court defended reason (all were shot down with a 'watch' on one of them placed for reporting purposes):

http://cryptome.info/dmca-dvd.htm

This page shows that while backups might be legal, the programs used to back them up are NOT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter

Furthermore, Jon Johansen was prosecuted (in Norway) for the DeCSS debacle, but was acquitted under Norway Law (apparently they are more sensible than the U.S.). If he ever came to the U.S., he would be prosecuted under the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. That doesn't mean you are legally allowed to back up DVDs in the U.S., save a recent licensed Real player at considerable cost and which adds even more DRM in the process.


Because your accuracy and knowledge in that is as limited as everything else you've had to say in this protracted personal fight against me.


I would say it's your accuracy knowledge that are in question. And there's nothing personal going on here from my side other than my personal assessment of your intractable ego. You seem to pop into various threads where I give my opinion on a topic and start attacking me, all while admitted you have "contempt" for me. Well golly gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out who is the attacker here.


17 USC 1201(a)(1)(B):


Once again, the devil is in the details. While it is apparently legal for you to make a backup of a DVD, the tools to make those backups are ILLEGAL so it is impossible for you to legally make that backup short of writing your own software to do so. Even then, there is no legal way (short of buying a license) to get the deCSS code needed to enable that software to be able to backup the DVD. An explanation is provided here:

http://www.aprogrammingpro.com/2008/10/13/is-it-legal-to-make-backup-copies-of-dvds-you-own/

Thus, the industry will go after companies trying to make backup programs for DVDs available to the consumer as those are quite illegal. So perhaps you could tell me how I can legally backup a DVD without the requisite software needed, which is illegal under the DMCA?

While you waste my time trying to make it appear like I'm stupid (mostly to people who couldn't care less what either of us have to say) and causing me to have to point out where you are wrong and where I got my information, I could be spending my time doing more useful things like working on my next pinball game. So excuse me, but I'm done here.

[matticus008]

It changes things because there's a very real price difference between buying something and renting it. You are suggesting that it's OK that movies are pulled from iTunes because I can go out and buy a movie on DVD in standard definition (which I do not want) or have to buy a Blu-ray player and then buy the movie for $25+ OR drive 50 miles to the nearest Blockbuster that rents Blu-ray movies when all I want to do is watch a movie like Superbad in HD off AppleTV on iTunes for $4.99 (or $3.99).
This still has nothing to do with anything. It is available for sale. It is available to rent. If it is not convenient for you, then you must do without or suffer the inconvenience. It does not violate your consumer rights to be inconvenienced.
I'll answer the question, but you seem to have magically forgotten the previous topic at hand, which was what does piracy have to do with such agreements. The original Napster versus a store like iTunes is the piracy example. The link is established between PIRACY and AVAILABILITY and the CONSUMER's behavior thereof through that example and it has been noted by the news many times.
Stop. For once, pay attention.

This is a distribution agreement between the studio and TV networks. The TV network is offering a sum of money for an exclusive right to show the work, and as part of that agreement, digital services are not permitted to engage in the digital transmission during the exclusivity period.

There is no anti-piracy angle to it. None. These actions are not taken in response to the threat of piracy, nor do they have any appreciable impact on the rate of piracy. The titles remain fully available for sale and rental during this time from a number of alternate sources. Even if every single former customer decided out of misplaced outrage to start pirating films, it's a change of a tiny fraction of 1%.
What doesn't make sense, however, is when they COMPLAIN about such "loss of sales" when in fact they are not making it EASY to buy their product. Ignore the consumer and he will not buy your product. It's that simple.
The less than 1% of revenue from the services clearly suggests that fewer than 1 in 100 consumers are the slightest bit inconvenienced. It is outrageous to claim that the "burden" of going to a rental store, local retailer, or Amazon is somehow crushingly unfair and that they can't turn on the TV or get it while it's available. Even if they miss out, it's just a movie. One movie.
Does the fact that even members of these forums openly stating they are going back to Bit Torrent to get movies since they aren't available on iTunes any longer not an indication of such a link?
That requires the presumption that they ever stopped using BT, that they ever purchased anything, and that they're not just stamping their feet so they have something to bitch about, and most importantly, that they constitute even a tiny fraction of either the buying public or of pirates.
The devil is in the details, not the surface bits you quote, but ignore the whole.
The 'surface bits' are better known to professionals as, you know, the law.
Regarding the legality of bypassing CSS
Again, your ignorance leads you astray. Those comments are for proposed blanket exemptions. They have no bearing. If you refer to the decision, moreover, it becomes clear that the need for such an exemption is unnecessary because no one has been actually harmed: "There was no showing that copy or use controls could not be circumvented without violating Section 1201(a)(1)".

In other words, CSS has not made any lawful use unlawful.
This page shows that while backups might be legal, the programs used to back them up are NOT:
The situation is more complex than that, but is not relevant to the question of whether you are entitled to make noninfringing, archival backups of your DVDs. For the nth time, you are.
You seem to pop into various threads where I give my opinion on a topic and start attacking me
You have not been attacked, as is plainly evident by anyone reading. You are issuing broad proclamations and condemnations to other posters based on faulty assumptions and absolutely terrible interpretations of the law. When corrected, you immediately turn to polemics and false authority. The only way to fight this ignorance is with information. You are always the one to make it personal, and rather than learning from the process and refining your comments, you simply repeat them in the same histrionic and senseless manner.
Once again, the devil is in the details. While it is apparently legal for you to make a backup of a DVD, the tools to make those backups are ILLEGAL so it is impossible for you to legally make that backup short of writing your own software to do so.
No. For crying out loud, if you are making a noninfringing use, the prohibitions do not apply to you. The DMCA does not alter your substantive rights.
An explanation is provided here:
Again, you confuse 'explanation' with 'opinion of lay person working from incomplete facts'. As he says himself, "The following is my opinion only" and more saliently: "The reality is that as long as your [sic] not selling or making copies available to anyone, your probably in the clear either way." Nevermind that his inquiry is woefully incomplete and that taking legal advice from someone who can't differentiate 'your' and 'you're' is pure folly to begin with, his bottom line directly contradicts the purpose for which you used the article.

You have a right to make archival backups. The DMCA does not alter that right, as it itself specifically states. Ripping a DVD and using the rip to play back is not archival and not a backup, and even still will not get you successfully sued.

Like I said, the only way to fight ignorance is with information.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'm sorry you cannot see the truth in any form, Matticus. You ignored everything I wrote (as usual) and believe what you think you know is the truth. Legal cases have been made against companies trying to offer legal backup methods for DVDs and that proves my point there. You ignore it and declare your own beliefs to be the one truth in the world. Any company you would run would ignore their consumers and the market place and instead attempt to prosecute them for being inconvenienced instead of trying to work with your consumers to create a viable sale as iTunes did with the Napster issue, which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt a LINK between availability and piracy, but you choose not to see it. You claim you do not give your opinions, but your opinions clearly are your own personal interpretations of events and laws and bare little resemblance to those of others out there on the Net. You have declared yourself Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Matticus and clearly are out of touch with reality. Good day to you, sir.

[charlituna]

someone please get a ruler and we can settle this once and for all.

[matticus008]

Legal cases have been made against companies trying to offer legal backup methods for DVDs and that proves my point there.
The point is (1) outside the topic at hand and (2) entirely self-contradicting. That topic, the personal right to noninfringing uses, is not supported in any way by your reference to "legal cases against companies", nor have any such cases curtailed in any way substantive rights of an individual making noninfringing backups, because, for at least the third time now, the prohibition in 1201 expressly does not apply to such individuals. Whether the author is guilty of copyright infringement has no bearing.

Further, "legal cases against companies" can't be made over lawful methods. In order to win a lawsuit, the law must have been violated. And yet again, the DMCA cannot be and never has been used against a person exercising his personal, noninfringing backup right.
Any company you would run would ignore their consumers and the market place and instead attempt to prosecute them for being inconvenienced
Again with the absurdity and polemics. You're an excellent troll, but a poor debater. You can continue to rant, but I assure you I do not tire of correcting ignorance and you will not succeed via childish tantrums. Ever.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yeah, um OK. Have fun listening to the sound of your own voice, Matticus. Clearly, it's the only voice you are capable of hearing.