Amazon takes away access to purchased Christmas movie during Christmas

I really don’t get this whole, but “I’m BUYING IT.”

Unless there is some explicit text that states DRM FREE, and a giant shiny DOWNLOAD NOW button, you aren’t buying shit. You are buying the privilege to stream it from Amazon, Netflix, who ever until they decide otherwise.

It’s like saying you have a gym membership, so that obviously entitles you to “own” part of the machines. In reality if the gym closes you get nothing (well perhaps some of your money back if you prepaid). That’s exactly what is happening here.

No this is a gym deactivating your membership and denying you access because they wanted to sell a preferred package to another customer. You already paid for the access, but well heck why let that get in the way of the gym making a profit. We’ll honor your membership again in 6 months, and the months of access you lost… oh well.

3 Likes

Classy move Disney and Amazon. This would be the reason that I still buy DVDs when it comes to the kids. And why I still download any music I buy online.

Anyone takes digital content from me, I am going to feel justified torrenting said item. I’ve already paid for it once, I’m not ripping off anyone that created the work, they’ve got their percentage from my initial outlay.

I will not have someone dictate to me terms of consumption, it’s unfair.

5 Likes

End user could have just downloaded the movie using Amazon Unbox, as well, just like how you download the music you buy online.

I don’t believe that Amazon is at fault here. I think it’s bullshit that this can happen, but buying something on Amazon Instant Video is only about 2/3 the price a DVD, and, like the name says, instant.

Plus, Amazon has Amazon Unbox, which allows you to download the video you “own” through instant video to your local hard drive, so you can watch it offline. If you have a big enough hard drive, you could have all of your video library stored on your hard drive, available offline, and presto! Disney can’t prevent access to your media.

I’m sure that Amazon negotiated the best deal they could with Disney. I’m not saying that I’m ok with shit being DRM-enabled, I’m just saying that since that’s the way of the world right now, I think that Amazon handles it well, and Unbox presents a nice work-around.

To be fair, I trust Valve a little more than I trust amazon, so far they haven’t done much to make me wary they’ll screw me over like that.

I know they could, and that they might in the future, but at least for the moment they seem to be one of the few companies out there willing to treat digital property at least partially like real property (for example there’s a new feature, in early beta-testing, that’ll allow you to you to ‘loan’ games to your friends and family. No charge, while your friend ‘has’ the game, you can’t play it, it’s like physical game-loaning, except with more certainty you’ll get the game back on time.)

Oh I agree - it’s probably some weird legal thing they have to have just in case they can’t run the service any more, or some other weirdnesses. I still think that if someone wanted to challenge them in (an EU) court they’d be called out for the buying terminology they use.

1 Like

Unless they have a Mac. Or Linux. Or want to watch it in the HD format you may have paid for.

I’m just saying there are limits to Unbox, one of which is that whole “must own Windows” thing that people have been moving away from in their homes. I rent from Amazon but I wouldn’t buy a movie from them.

1 Like

I just borrow films from the library these days.

2 Likes

True, true. I hadn’t thought of the OS requirement. And in all honesty, the interface is pretty basic right now, so I hope they’re working on improving it and supporting other OSs. Of course, ideally, once you purchase video online, you should be able to just plain download it as an .mp4 or whatever format you like, just the same as how you can download purchased music and play it using whatever media player you like. I know that just because the way that Amazon has things set up works for me, it’s still not good enough, but I see Unbox as Amazon at least trying to make things more fair.

1 Like

Indeed. Give me hard copies under my control, or get bent.

Okay, seriously, can we get some kind of Hippocratic Oath for professional programmers?
This isn’t about programmers doing anything wrong, this is the companies.

Just two points of fact:

These shows are scheduled to broadcast tonight (Dec 16) on the ABC network in the USA.

The shows are once again available on Amazon as of Dec 16 Noon Eastern.

It would appear that this publicity (and the Guardian story) have had an effect.

2 Likes

OK, folks,to those of you thinking this is somehow “new”, no. Amazon showed they could do this half a decade ago with … yes, Irony, “much”… Copies of 1984 bought for American kindles on the Amazon.ca (canada) website. The IP terms were such that they were legal to sell to Canadians in Canada but not to Americans in the USA.

Amazon reached in and removed the copies from American-owned Kindles without any permission and without any warning. They did refund the purchase price to those whose copies they removed, but it showed the essential issue behind “licensure” and DRM that everyone should have sat up and take notice back then. There was a brief hu-hu and then almost everyone forgot about it.

Back at the turn of the millennium, there were mass protests in Seattle as the WTO met there. Strangely, no one was protesting the WIPO meeting happening right across town in which they were pushing for the DMCA rip-off to make it an international treaty. When that failed, the US Legislature just made it apply to Americans.

Back in 1998, Disney pushed for, and got, the Copyright Extension Act, a bogus piece of legislation that essentially did what no law is supposed to do, changed the law in the middle of the game, to wit, it took existing copyrights that were about to expire – namely Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, and Pluto – and gave Disney an extra 20-odd years on them. And you can expect that the same thing will happen when they are about to expire again. Corporations don’t die, so you can bet they aren’t ABOUT to let their ownership of properties expire unlike you worthless plebes.

The real problem is that IP law is utterly out of whack, it’s no longer functional, and people sense this. The whole thing needs to be overhauled utterly to make rewards somehow inherent in ownership/creation/release, and to remove all vestige of “control” over those creations, which cannot happen once it hits the Net.

20 years ago, John Perry Barlow wrote a fantastic Treatise on this for Wired Magazine:
The Economy Of Ideas
A framework for patents and copyrights in the Digital Age.
(Everything you know about intellectual property is wrong.)

It’s still remarkably timely even 20 years later. And Barlow is not just some author bloviating an idea – as a member of the band The Grateful Dead, he put his money where his mouth is, and proved the validity of what he said by getting rich doing it.

It’s a long read but it’s well worth it. It’ll help you think about copyright and IP and the difficulties of rewards for it in an age where it’s all ephemeral bits and bytes, not objects to be interdicted.

And, if you’re paying ANY attention at all, you need to look into the TPP and see why it needs to be stomped on, and hard – it’s an effort to turn SOPA/PIPA once more into a reality by a different route – by creating treaty obligations quietly and under the table instead of passing messy, constituent-angering laws.

1 Like

This kind of thing ticks me off. It’s kind of like the debit card scheme, where every POS machine initializes the transaction as a debit-card (and not a credit-card), so they get you to put your ATM code into their crappy POS machine (!) and then the bank gets to charge a small fee to you, instead of the merchant.
I have a tendency to roll my eyes somewhat when a person rants about “The Banksters” and such, but modern capitalism certainly does seem utterly and completely divorced from the realities and necessities of being human.

2 Likes

I think the problem lies in the fact that there is NO shiny button to explain anything clearly during a modern, online purchase. Check the EULA and spend four hours getting tongue twisted and hopelessly confused? Maybe go and read the support pages to see what others have posted about their purchases?
Commerce certainly knows the public is used to handing over money and getting a tangible thing in return. They’ve removed half of that equation, inserted a new paradigm where you get nothing but 1s and 0s (and rented 1s and 0s at that), and then act shocked, SHOCKED, when people get upset about their purchase being rescinded for arbitrary rules and conditions.

2 Likes

I interpreted “Bill sez” as referring to the submitter of the story, as the typical Boing Boing fashion seems to be to mention the submitter of the story at the beginning in a similar manner. In which case, though it’s been a long while since last I used the submission form, I believe it’s up to the submitter to attach as little or as much personal info about themselves as they chose.

1 Like

The IP terms being that Canada is a life+50 years nation for copyright (for now) and George Orwell’s stuff is public domain in Canada. If I recall correctly, it was one of those companies that takes public domain text and sells it as an ebook when you could just get it for free off Project Gutenberg. They screwed up and put it up for sale in the US, not noticing that Orwell’s stuff is still under copyright there.

1 Like

Indeed, here’s the original Reddit thread where this “story” originated from, and an update from the OP, as of an hour ago:

Update: OP here. Both of these specials are available once again this morning. I have no idea what happened. I can imagine two possibilities: One, Disney and/or Amazon were embarrassed enough to quickly reverse the policy. Two, this was the plan all along and the "window of exclusivity" for whatever Disney-owned network showed the specials was just over the weekend. I don't know which is true. However, the removal was blogged on Boing Boing and consequently hit The Guardian this morning, so maybe it was the embarrassment thing?

Perhaps companies will just need to be shamed into doing the right thing on a case-by-case basis. EDIT: The shows are apparently being broadcast OTA tonight, which makes the first (embarrassment) theory all the more likely. Yay publicity!

Note that The Guardian has more carefully-stated details. The headline says it was an “accident.” The removal was explained as a temporary situation and a “mistake:”

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

Please know, I’m not suggesting that “purchases being pulled” isn’t a possibility for the future. It is a very real concern. Every customer will have to decide for themselves whether or not that’s something they want to deal with (while the decision between physical and digital still exists as an option. :wink: )

Apple does it with apps now, and I’m sure there are other examples. I haven’t heard of an (unresolved) case with movies on current digital movie stores though. Time will tell…

1 Like

Is it ironic that there’s an advert for Amazon on the page I read this from? Very meta Boing Boing.

1 Like

If I buy something, I want to own the thing I buy. That means I can sell it or loan it to my friends. Companies love this new digital frontier. Production costs are lower, because they don’t have to produce a physical product, and they also get to maintain ownership of the product.
When a pirated product is more flexible than the real thing, there is a serious problem.

Also, I find it funny that BoingBoing on one hand will call Disney evil, and then on the other hand, worship them. There are so many articles on BoingBoing praising their rides over the years that you could fill a book.

1 Like