Disney Pulls a Reverse Santa, Takes Back Christmas Shows From Amazon Customers 418
Sockatume writes "Since 2011, Amazon Instant Video has sold a series of Christmas shorts from Disney called 'Prep and Landing'. Unfortunately this holiday season, Disney has had a change of heart and has decided to make the shorts exclusive to its own channels. The company went so far as to retroactively withdrawn the shows from Amazon, so that customers who have already paid for them no longer have access. Apparently this reverse-Santa ability is a feature Amazon provides all publishers, and customers have little recourse but to go cap-in-hand to a Disney outlet and pay for the shows again."
Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not just call this a Grinch move and be done with it?
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be ok with that!
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
... and the pitcher is $RANDOM_MALL_SANTA.
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because in the end, the Grinch comes to learn the error of his ways and eventually saves Christmas. Somehow, I don't see Disney doing this...
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Because in the end, the Grinch comes to learn the error of his ways and eventually saves Christmas. Somehow, I don't see Disney doing this...
That's because you're thinking old-style Christmas.
This is the new millennium; the Libertarian one.
We only have to save Christmas for the already rich. The rest of us can play with the wrapping paper they toss in the garbage.
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
Excuse me, mister I'm-rich-enough-to-afford-a-garbage-can, but we're not all made of money!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore if you bothered to read the Militia Act of 1792, signed into law by George Washington, you'd know that the militia was to consist of everybody who could vote under the age of 45. Gun ownership was mandatory for this group, not owning a gun was, in fact, a crime.
Except for the women, of course. Oh, and the blacks, I imagine. And any other "non-people". I mean, while we're being slavishly faithful to the founder's intents and everything...
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to take this as a wake-up call and go back to physical media or non-DRM downloads.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
An always-connected player would defeat the whole purpose of physical media.
No, it doesn't, because only you think the point of physical media is to not need a network connection. In the minds of the people selling that media, the point of physical media is to keep them from needing massive bandwidth (like Netflix and Amazon video), so customers can just watch the movie from the local media, after exchanging a relatively small amount of data with their servers so they can exercise control over it (even aft
Re: (Score:3)
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)
If you buy blu ray you're fucked as they can retroactively cancel any blue ray player hardware.
EULA's dont apply where i live :) (Score:3)
IMO, a contract which has no negotiating room, SIGN HERE OR ELSE, is a worthless pile of poo
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just call this a Grinch move and be done with it?
What and risk a lawsuit from the Dr Seuss state [techdirt.com].
Re:Reverse Santa? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
how this isn't theft?
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Interesting)
More likely fraud than theft...
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
It's still morally reprehensible (Score:2)
Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it.
You are almost certainly correct but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous or wrong. It also won't stop the almost inevitable class action lawsuit from some ambulance chasing legal firm which in this case I might actually cheer for.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Disney is a Corporation, and the one stolen from are just "little people". Corporations are people too, my friend! But only when it benefits them...
Re:Can someone explain (Score:4, Insightful)
^^^ That. Corporations are not beholden to the same laws as we peasants.
Bottom line is that our system is designed such that, with enough money, you can buy pretty much any verdict you want, within reason, so legal recourse against an entity the likes of Disney is well beyond the vast majority of folks. And, since your rights are only valid as far as you can defend them, megacorps like this can do just about anything they want to the rabble without fear of consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Revoking a revokable viewing license is not illegal. Unethical yes, but not illegal.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
Because you didn't RTFA!
This week, though, the company temporarily removed access to both episodes of Prep & Landing, not only preventing new customers buying or renting the show, but also preventing those who had already paid – under the promise that they could "re-watch it as often" as they like – from doing so.
Amazon blamed the removal on "a temporary issue with some of our catalog data" which it says has been fixed, adding that "customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, well, I'm sorry I voted this up from the firehose, and already got ready to abandon purchases from Amazon(and possibly sue). The differences between a technical issue and a dick move are really substantial.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon deleting copies of 1984 should've been enough to persuade you that you shouldn't do business with them. This is what happens when you deal with proprietary garbage or things that are out of your control.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no reason to not buy MP3s from Amazon, since they are readily downloadable and non-DRM'd, so you can back them up locally to your heart's content.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Insightful)
The "temporary issue" was a lack of publicity.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Insightful)
It only became temporary when they got caught.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am of the opinion that these people did not buy a license. The seller advertised the sale of the movie. The customer believed they were buying the movie. Everybody involved with the transaction referred to it as purchasing the movie. The situation where you pay for a temporary license to view a movie is called a rental, and Amazon has that as a separate transaction type.
Doesn't matter. They either reneged on the sale or they reneged on the license. Either would seem actionable in court if you ask me.
For you or me, its small claims court.
For 30,000 customers its civil RICO.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
The TorrentFreak "article" you referenced is just quoting the BoingBoing article, so that's the same source. And NEITHER of them actually asked Amazon about it, they just took the word of a user, who took the word of a random customer care person. It's amazing how many people seem to think customer care (usually low paid outsourced phone support people working from a script) somehow are "what a company tells the customer" like it's somehow the official and unerring policy statement of a $100B business.
The Guardian, on the other hand, actually asked Amazon. So did AllThingsD [allthingsd.com] and Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] who both confirmed it was a mistake (and according to AllThingsD has already been fixed).
That's the difference between journalism and blogging. Some journalists actually do some research instead of reposting 2nd hand rumors without confirmation. Sort of like your post vs. mine, in fact ;)
Re: (Score:3)
No sign of temporary mentioned. Not here either. In fact it's only the Guardian that mentions the words "temporary" and "accidentally".
Yeah, it's only in the headline of the only reference for the summary, after all.
It's in my nature to believe what a company first tells a single angry customer over what they try to say in a PR backpedal.
You quoted what they told "a single angry customer." I'll repeat it: 'at this time they've pulled that show for exclusivity on their own channel.' That's the end of the quote. The rest of the comment from "customer" is "in other words", which means "not a quote""
Of course Disney can "pull" a product from the Amazon shelves at any time they want. They've done this before with DVD content. They release certain movies for a li
Love it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Love it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Love it (Score:5, Informative)
What's funny is, I used to hear that if you DLd from pirates, you risked viruses. Then came Sony.
Plastic Discs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Plastic Discs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ishtar (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
but I'm just as fine with non-DRM digital files
That's my DVD-ripped MP4s are
Re:Plastic Discs (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you telling me that watching Spaceballs 10 times is enough?
"Tech Savvy People" (Score:3)
My Dad asked me once how I got DVDs that I owned onto my iPod Nano, and if he would be able to do it himself. I told him it was a pretty convoluted process involving multiple pieces of software I downloaded and built from source, some shell scripts, and invoking the Nyarlthotep, the Crawling Chaos, at the appropriate moment.
After a few minutes of research, I bought my Dad a piece of software for $20 that with one button click rips a DVD and transcodes it into an iPod-compatible file. I believe it was someth
Ahhh, (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
The article says that Amazon called it "accidental," and that access has already been restored for those who already bought it.
The most likely explanation is that Disney wanted to stop selling it through Amazon, and nobody really considered the fact that that customers should retain access to what they've already bought.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've heard, a lot of kleptomaniacs steal for the thrill of it and don't care about what they take. If there was anonymous return slots, I bet some of these people would return the items.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Been there, done that.
Walked out of a Best Buy some 17 or 18 years ago with a bunch of CD's I had intended to purchase. They sent us to get a keyboard for the PC we brought in (Who knew they wouldn't have any any AT keyboards or AT/PS2 adapters on hand?).
We got to the car and realized we'd skipped right through the anti-theft devices with nary a beep; went home and got the keyboard; and walked right back in with a cart full of CDs. We sure as heck got a really hard look from the guy at the entrance but when we told him what happened he laughed his ass off and turned on the anti-theft devices.
Accidental? RIIIIIGHT... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Cue lawsuit in 3-2-1... (Score:3)
The company went so far as to retroactively withdrawn the shows from Amazon, so that customers who have already paid for them no longer have access.
Can we say "class action lawsuit"? I knew you could...
Disney's PR flaks are going to be working some overtime this holiday season.
Re:Cue lawsuit in 3-2-1... (Score:5, Informative)
Class actions are gone, there is a binding arbitration clause in every single sales contract since the supreme court ruled they aren't unconscionable.
Would you expect anything else? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Credit card charge-back time (Score:2, Interesting)
Take back what you sold me, I take back the money I gave you.
Re: (Score:2)
You normally only have a limited timeframe (2 months or so) to do a chargeback. Most people who had these purchases revoked likely bought this content in a previous year (as stated, Amazon started selling this in 2011).
The chargeback option likely isn't going to be that useful. Not to mention executing a chargeback can lead to a lot of merchants blacklisting you.
Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is complete FUD according to the article. The show was removed from customers that paid for it by a mistake, which was corrected shortly thereafter. It seems that anyone that bought it can still watch it just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh... You don't want to mess with a good old fashion outrage with facts.
Re:Did Fox News buy Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Thanks Disney! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with digital downloads (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not buying the goods, you're renting them. You're always at the whim of the copyright owner with regards to your continued access to the work you paid for.
Mark my words, when physical media is gone, they'll stop selling media to you indefinitely, but charge you for the same content on a recurring basis. Not like Netflix where you're paying for access to stream any number of works, but you'll pay per month (or per access) for a single work.
Plus, with everything so locked down and controlled by the copyright owners, much more media will be lost to time due to the inability to move it between systems freely. Almost 30 years later, you can still acquire and play the original Super Mario Bros on an authentic NES, without getting the okay from Nintendo to do so. When digital downloads are the only method to acquire media, then you can forget about buying used copies 30, 40, 50 years later. By the time copyright actually lapses and you can legally do something about it, it'll be too late as all the original hardware will likely be either destroyed or non-functional.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not shitting on streaming subscriptions. I actually like the idea of it, it's basically the modern-day video store, except instead of physically going to the video store (or having them mail you discs), you pay a subscription and can access anything you want. But it's up front with the fact that it's a subscription and you lose access to everything if you no longer pay.
The problem with digital downloads in a non-streaming fashion is that people treat them like purchases, both consumers and copyright hol
Read the article? (Score:4, Informative)
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....
This is why I don't buy streaming videos (Score:2)
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
This is why I won't buy "Ultraviolet" digital copy (Score:3)
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.
Sorry ... (Score:3)
Then why do these companies continue to act like we will keep "buying" stuff from them if they can do this whenever they want?
If I paid you for something, I either expect a refund, or something clearly up front which says "you're only kind of buying this, but we can take it away any time we like". Not finding out after the fact that they can.
And this is the problem with the corporations view of digital media -- we have no rights, and only get what we 'bought' as long as they feel like giving it to us.
In general, it's easier for the consumer to just pirate the stuff than to try to do it the way they want; because we just keep getting burned.
That it was Di$ney doing this is no surprise. They seem to be the world leaders in this kind of thing, and are mostly greedy bastards. Pity they've bought Marvel.
This kind of stuff will only get worse.
They should be more honest (Score:2)
Charge back (Score:3)
let the CC companies bully disney and amazon.
Nothing to see here (Score:2)
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)
This doesn't stop Amazon from just cancelling your account anytime they feel like it.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-customers-kindle-deletes-account [theguardian.com]
Or maybe just dropping their video biz.
Not to mention you can't transfer ownership, will it to your kids etc.
Sorry DRM is stupid all day. Give me the physical media every time.
1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
anyone remembered the Amazon Kindle's 1984 affair?
But --- (Score:4, Funny)
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)
> 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"?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Enjoy the streams, suckas (Score:3)
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.
Re:my library (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:my library (Score:5, Informative)
Is not your library if the vendor can take it from you. You didn't buy, just got a limited permission to play it while the real owner is in good mood, and in their own terms.
This.
Let it stand as a lesson to all: You don't buy digital media from the likes of Amazon, you rent it.
Re:my library (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you don't rent it either.
When I rent a movie from the local rental place (yeah, we actually still have one), they can't come to my house and take it back whenever they damn-well please, much less within the specified rental period.
Disney et al, on the other hand, can revoke any privileges you've already paid for because of the one-sided, bullshit clickwrap "agreements" that you "accepted" when you signed up for the service.
This is not a rental, this is ... shit.
Re:my library (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of the things I have personally built, the standard flowchart for DRM consists of:
Create user account.
Purchase digital goods under user account.
If user has paid for digital goods, make them available for that user account.
Every time a client would say something along the lines of "but what about the users being able to send the files to their friends? How do we prevent that?".
I would simply tell them, "The cost of implementation is going to be higher than the amount of money you'd lose if every user sh
Re: (Score:3)
Is not your library if the vendor can take it from you. You didn't buy, just got a limited permission to play it while the real owner is in good mood, and in their own terms.
This is why I don't "buy" videos from online streaming companies like Vudu or Amazon or iTunes. I either rent it for a small amount (usually Redbox these days) or for the select few I buy the disc so I can watch it anytime or media shift it to whatever format/device of the year it needs to be on.
Re: (Score:3)
I like paying Netflix for streaming precisely because it's a rental model. Shows keep disappearing from there too, of course, but at least I don't feel like I've lost what I "bought".
I don't care how many Disney's take their shows back, I'm not subscribing to 50, or even 5 services. I'm happy to pay, but for goodness sake if you're not willing to let an aggregator take a slice, you'll be getting nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently "Prep and Landing" is the name of a 2009 holiday short about Santa's elite "advance team" of elves that visits houses before Santa's arrival and makes sure that everything goes smoothly (Preparation for Santa's Landing).
http://disney.go.com/prep-and-landing/about/prep-and-landing/ [go.com]
Re:Smile (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I smile and torrent whatever I like. If that option goes away, back to sneakernet which worked nicely in the analog tape days before the intarwebs.
The masters have no moral obligation to me in their own eyes, so I consider none whatever to them.