Sez who?
Really? And how exactly would that happen if I'm not connected to the intenet?
Really? And how exactly would that happen if I'm not connected to the intenet?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Movie Availability on iTunes May Be Temporary
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow
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.
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.
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.
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!
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)
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
and with yet another outstandingly obtuse move, the movie industry once again fails to surprise its costumers.
Actually you don't own it, you have a licence to play it for private use.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The customer doesn't have a right to it.
Where is the logical link between a company not selling something the way you want it, and you subsequently just taking it anyway?
Um, yes. It's their movie. They can take it off the shelf whenever they want.
Explain what possible anti-piracy motivation a studio would have in removing titles from online stores.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read my posts or the article in the OP and you'll see why the movies are getting pulled from iTunes.
Lethal
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...
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.
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.
That's the problem. In your world, the consumer has no "rights" PERIOD.
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.
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.
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'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.
Sorry, but you're NOT allowed to back it up. Read the DMCA. Stop wasting my time.
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.
folks take a breath
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where am I talking about "fact and "reality" ??? You mistake complaints about unfair or greedy driven systems for descriptions of reality.
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.
Just listen to yourself. "I'm clearly more sophisticated". LOL. You are something alright, but sophisticated isn't the word I'd use.
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?
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.