Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Disney Pulls a Reverse Santa, Takes Back Christmas Shows From Amazon Customers 418

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 The company went so far as to retroactively withdrawn the shows from Amazon, so that customers who have already paid for them no longer have access.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This discussion has been archived.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

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Millennium (2451) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:05PM (#45706195) Homepage

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

    • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:15PM (#45706347)
      Being that Amazon and Disney are involved, it's probably more like the anal version of a Reverse Cowgirl.
    • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:16PM (#45706371)

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

      • by minstrelmike (1602771) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:49PM (#45706817)

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

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

        • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:58PM (#45706919)

          The rest of us can play with the wrapping paper they toss in the garbage.

          Excuse me, mister I'm-rich-enough-to-afford-a-garbage-can, but we're not all made of money!

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by ganjadude (952775)
          Exactly, The evol libertarians are destroying america with all their small government and individual freedoms
          • by NoMaster (142776)

            Exactly, The evol libertarians are destroying americans with all their small government and individual freedoms

            FTFY.

          • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Seumas (6865) on Monday December 16, 2013 @07:08PM (#45709125)

            You have to remember, the democrats and liberals have to demonize and misrepresent libertarians because they thrive on a two party (acting as one) system and the republicans and conservatives have to demonize and misrepresent libertarians because they thrive on a two party (acting as one) system.

      • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Darinbob (1142669) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:56PM (#45706895)

        Don't blame Disney. This evil starts with Amazon, they're the ones that allow your purchased products to be stolen back again on a whim.

        • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @04:15PM (#45707091)

          Yes, blame Disney - they absolutely had a choice as to whether to act malevolently to their paying customers or not.

          But, yes, also blame Amazon for idiotic terms.

          And yes blame the legislators for allowing the widespread fraud of misleading people in to believing they purchased/bought a product when instead the seller only gave them a short term non-negotiable, unilaterally cancellable, license. These are absolutely not sales of products and when you acquire a license then you don't "buy" or "purchase" a movie/song you license it. Any attempt to "sell" when in fact the company mean "[temporarily] license" should be met with such huge fraud charges that the companies involved will barely be able to continue trading and certainly will be unable to continue if charged again. In Amazon's case for example "one-click ordering" the movie entails purchasing data or media that includes inalienable and continuous rights to consume that media in perpetuity, so they'd need to change it to "one-click license" to avoid being fraudulently deceptive about it.

          Yes, I'm serious.

          • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by kaizendojo (956951) on Monday December 16, 2013 @04:31PM (#45707281)
            No, blame the end user. That's what you get for licensing your virtual entertainment and not reading the terms. I *buy* my movies on *media I own* or stored on a server *I* control. If Disney wants my stuff, they have to come into the house and physically take it. And I think I can take Mickey.
            • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Monday December 16, 2013 @04:49PM (#45707499)
              This is why I will buy only DVDs, Blu-Rays, and non-DRM downloaded digital media as long as they are available and not build a "digital library" hosted on anyone else's servers. We've already seen too many companies go belly up and take the content with them, or where digital content gets revoked like this.

              People need to take this as a wake-up call and go back to physical media or non-DRM downloads.
              • by Vrtigo1 (1303147)
                Doesn't blu-ray require Internet access to "authenticate" newer discs? If so, it seems reasonable to assume the manufacturers could just as easily push out an update that makes discs no longer playable. I dislike any type of media which cannot be played in an airgapped medium, it gives everyone else too much control.
              • by Grishnakh (216268)

                People need to take this as a wake-up call and go back to physical media or non-DRM downloads.

                You mean like BitTorrent? You don't have to worry about DRM with that.

            • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by SkunkPussy (85271) on Monday December 16, 2013 @05:18PM (#45707837) Journal

              If you buy blu ray you're fucked as they can retroactively cancel any blue ray player hardware.

            • EULA's are non binding in New Zealand... the Consumer Guarantees Act sets out consumers rights, and it CANNOT be contracted out of. Once I purchase something, it's mine... If Disney took them back from me, they'd be in for a bad time...

              IMO, a contract which has no negotiating room, SIGN HERE OR ELSE, is a worthless pile of poo
          • And yes blame the legislators for allowing the widespread fraud of misleading people in to believing they purchased/bought a product when instead the seller only gave them a short term non-negotiable, unilaterally cancellable, license.

            I don't know what Amazon's terms are. If you buy from Apple, you can keep downloaded movies for as long as you want, but movies can be removed from the store, in which case you lose the ability to download them again. Maybe it's the same with Amazon?

        • by bigpat (158134)

          Don't blame Disney. This evil starts with Amazon, they're the ones that allow your purchased products to be stolen back again on a whim.

          So, the article says that Amazon said that this was a glitch and has now been corrected... so perhaps we could get a real story with some actual verification that users have access to their purchases again. Seems like this story is way way overblown. If it were true, then obviously people are due refunds... but it doesn't appear to be true.

          • Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dmomo (256005) on Monday December 16, 2013 @06:26PM (#45708643) Homepage

            I just spoke with an Amazon rep. He admitted that purchased content can and has been blacked out at any time without warning. I got him to refund every digital purchase I made (only about 3 movies).

            • by Obfuscant (592200)

              He admitted that purchased content can and has been blacked out at any time without warning.

              Well, yes, the '1984' incident should have told you that. But "can" is not "will be", and in this case Amazon has already stated that it was a mistake that has been rectified.

              The '1984' problem was that the vendor who was selling through Amazon couldn't legally sell the book, so Amazon couldn't legally sell the book. They retracted the content and then refunded the money. The current kerfluffle is about a sale that was legal and Amazon made a mistake in not allowing access to something they've already sol

    • by Chrisq (894406)

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

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

    • by EvilSS (557649) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:39PM (#45706709)

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

      Because Grinch is a registered trademark?

  • Can someone explain (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fredrated (639554) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:05PM (#45706205) Journal

    how this isn't theft?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:07PM (#45706223)

      More likely fraud than theft...

    • by SteveDorries (1313401) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:08PM (#45706235)
      Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it. That license they purchased was not irrevocable, it was revocable. This is the reason that I will never "purchase" a show or movie unless I have the right to make a personal hard-copy of it for backup purposes.
      • Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it.

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:09PM (#45706255)

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

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:28PM (#45706565)

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

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

    • by TheLink (130905)
      Because some favoured corporation is doing it?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by jellomizer (103300) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:15PM (#45706341)

      Because you didn't RTFA!

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

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

      • by i kan reed (749298) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:25PM (#45706507) Homepage Journal

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

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:39PM (#45706701)

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

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:32PM (#45706627)

        The "temporary issue" was a lack of publicity.

      • by omnichad (1198475) on Monday December 16, 2013 @04:09PM (#45707027) Homepage

        It only became temporary when they got caught.

      • by gravis777 (123605)

        "customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."

        This was actually one of Amazon's big selling points a couple of years ago - if you purchase a digital video through Amazon, you are not suppose to loose access to it. HOWEVER, this statement is not what Amazon's Terms of Use says:

        e. Availability of Purchased Digital Content . Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.

        Vudu seems to have clearer Terms of Service, which seem to favor the viewer - from Vudu's Terms of Service:

        Exhibition periods for Content will vary depending on the method of purchase or rental and the Content being purchased or rented. When you purchase or rent Content, it is your responsibility to review any additional terms of use provided to you. Such additional terms of use may set forth restrictions upon your window of time to initiate viewing of content and, once initiated, the duration of time you have to complete viewing such Content. If no additional terms concerning timing and duration of viewing the Content are applicable to your order, then the following general terms may apply:
        SNIP
        If you purchase Content, you may view it for as long as you (i) are capable of accessing the VUDU Service, and (ii) maintain an active VUDU Account.

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

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

      • by Belial6 (794905)
        Amazon has a separate transaction choice for rental, so even if it is somewhere in the EULA, it is clear that Amazon specifically represents one as a sale and the other as a rental. Combine that with the fact that the rental price is less than the sale price and it becomes clear that the purchaser most certainly believes he is making a purchase as opposed to a rental.

        The only reason that trying to convert a sale into a rental post transaction isn't considered fraud is because of the screwed up caste sys
  • Love it (Score:5, Informative)

    by oodaloop (1229816) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:06PM (#45706209)
    The best arguments for piracy come from the studios/MPAA/RIAA/media outlets themselves. Even after you pay for content, it's only their whim that lets you keep it.
    • Re:Love it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fermion (181285) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:59PM (#45706933) Homepage Journal
      A few years ago, in the time before ripping, firms could be assured to sell a product many times to the same customer. You lost an album, another sale. You upgraded from VHS to DVD, another sale. The big thing studios were fighting over was the customers right to own a perfect copy, with no generational copy penalty. Such a thing kills the long term profits of a venture. Bambi only get sold one, and is passed on from generation to generation.

      This is why I have bought almost no videos online. The nature of the sale is that I do not own the product, but merely have a license to view it for an indeterminate period. Invariably at some time, when Amazon changes format, when Apple iTunes is no more, I will lose the ability to view the content. Better to buy a DVD and make a backup. Or, honestly, steam or rent.

      As much as studios complain about streaming, through stunts like this they are pushing us all in that direction.

  • Plastic Discs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CohibaVancouver (864662) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:06PM (#45706213)
    I'm very comfortable with technology, but in one sense I remain a Luddite: When it comes to video that we're going to shell out money for, I only buy it on DVD. If it's not available on DVD, we don't pony up the coin. I'll often rip the DVD and put it on my kid's iPods, but we still have the physical media. I accept that in a decade or so DVDs will go the way of the Dodo Bird and I'll have to make a change then, but for now it's plastic discs for me.
    • But what happens when they require you to have a propriety DVD player that reads only Disney films (or other Media Corp IP), like region coding? That won't be an issue as the physical copies distribution platform is dying a slow death, however. Digital Rights Management is instead taking over, and still pushing the same old practices. Proprietary hardware/software that permits only specific media to be played is already in use (see: Amazon, iTunes, Xbox One, Steam, etc.). Then there's the fact that peop
      • by crakbone (860662)
        Actually that already happened. It was called DIVX. And it sold propriety encoded disks. It died a very large fiery death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX [wikipedia.org] Itunes originally started with drm encoded music and has since removed that. I foresee that will happen for video in the future as well. Right now the technology is so new and the production companies so old that the time to match up the new video business models with the slow bureaucratic functions of the studios is taking quite awhile to change
    • I accept that in a decade or so DVDs will go the way of the Dodo Bird and I'll have to make a change then

      The change is already on. Ishtar skipped DVD and went straight to Blu-ray.

  • gotta love digital content. It's like the guys from Best Buy kicking in your door and taking your treasured DVD of Flash Dance. What thats not legal? Who Knew!
  • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:08PM (#45706231)

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

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

    • by TheLink (130905)
      Hope they treat accidental shoplifters in your country just as nicely then.
    • by sjbe (173966) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:12PM (#45706291)

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

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

  • by sjbe (173966) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:08PM (#45706239)

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

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

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

  • by CTU (1844100) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:09PM (#45706245) Journal

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      There is a way to stop them.STOP BUYING DISNEY SHIT OR GOING TO THE PARKS.HIT THE MOFOs where it hurts them the worst,in the billfold.
  • by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:09PM (#45706257)

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

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

    • by LocalH (28506) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:14PM (#45706325) Homepage

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

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

  • by Dega704 (1454673) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:10PM (#45706269)
    I almost forgot why I don't purchase individual videos that don't give me either a tangible copy or an actual file download. Now I remember!
    • I don't purchase them because they're $14.99. I rent in HD for $2.99. If i want it, I'll buy the BluRay Lay-Zar Disc.
  • by LocalH (28506) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:11PM (#45706277) Homepage

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

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

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

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Mark my words, when physical media is gone

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

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

      It's gotten to the point that I categorically will NOT buy and Blu Rays with the Ult

  • Read the article? (Score:4, Informative)

    by sjpadbury (169729) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:12PM (#45706293) Homepage

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

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

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

    Plus, the used DVD is typically che

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

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

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

  • by gstoddart (321705) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:21PM (#45706453) Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This kind of stuff will only get worse.

  • You are never buying from them, only renting for variable durations
  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:26PM (#45706523)

    let the CC companies bully disney and amazon.

  • Amazon wouldn't sell digital downloads where the company that owns the rights can just revoke access at any whim. Both Disney and Amazon know that doesn't make sense. People who bought it still have access to it. That's the whole point of a digital purchase. Denying access to it was an accident and apparently has been fixed. And for people saying they want to stick with discs, have fun living in the past.
  • 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SYSS Mouse (694626) on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:29PM (#45706577) Homepage

    anyone remembered the Amazon Kindle's 1984 affair?

  • But --- (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pope Raymond Lama (57277) <gwidion AT mpc DOT com DOT br> on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:39PM (#45706711) Homepage

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

  • not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Monday December 16, 2013 @04:14PM (#45707075) Journal

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

    So now how do you feel about keeping your content "in the cloud"?

    • by Shados (741919)

      If you bought it that way with the intent of keeping it safe and forever and ever and ever, you're dumb, no argument.

      If the idea was purely out of convenience, well, now you lost it and its annoying, but Amazon reimburse people in these events (if not automatically, definately if you ask them). So you had the content for a while, and you have your money back with the option to either buy it again via a different channel, or to just spend your money elsewhere.

      Not a bad deal if you ask me.

  • by TigerPlish (174064) on Monday December 16, 2013 @07:00PM (#45709005)

    Streaming and The Cloud: Where the Content Owner or designated representative can come in and remove content you had paid for.

    What, exactly, is so appealing about this model? If it's the lack of physical media to store / move, I can *sorta* see that.. but other than that.. where's the appeal in paying for something that the seller / owner can just *zap* out of your world? Does not compute.

    And don't give me the "I can view from any device at any time" schtick. Let's take "Wreck-It Ralph." I bought the BD / DVD combo. Ripped the DVD into an apple-friendly format and have it in my phone as part of my "desert island" playbill. The actual disc set is just chillin' in my shelf, and gets played -- a lot. So.. I just do'nt follow. Sorry. I have it in two devices at once. I can make that 3 or 4 without much trouble -- without having to "stream" it from somewhere.

    I simply don't see the value of paying for something you can't hold in your hand and can be taken away at a whim. Sounds to me like a model made by criminals bent on theft.

    If you want to keep it, get it in physical format.

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.

Working...