7 ms·

> We got scammed. Well, depends on how you look at it and how comfortable you are forgetting about how it looked before you could buy online. I pay for conven

> We got scammed. Well, depends on how you look at it and how comfortable you are forgetting about how it looked before you could buy online. I pay for convenience which is a service rather than tangible good. If I need a book for my research, I would prefer to have access to it immediately rather than wait two weeks to get it from overseas. My time is valuable and the pause on the project or inconvenience of not having the book for a week or two cost me much more than price of the book. If I want to watch a movie with my kids I am fine renting the movie for the price of the DVD even if I know I could be watching the DVD multiple times. Most times we do not re-watch movies anyway and it is worth to me to be able to do something with my kids on a whim rather than have to plan it. If I pay for Spotify I understand I don't own all those titles. But, for a price of half a CD per month I get access to as many titles as I can listen to. This lets me discover new music on a whim. Something, that was not possible when I was buying physical CDs in a music store. Also I paid A LOT more for CDs than I pay currently for access to much more music. But I agree things should be called properly without creating false impression that you own something rather than pay for a time-limited service.

ghaff 6y ago
I used to be somewhat skeptical of the convenience claim. A former colleague argued that the attraction of Napster was more about convenience than price which I didn't really buy. But if we look at the popularity of streaming services today versus owning even DRM-free music, that would seem to support the convenience theory. (It hasn't taken off for books to the same degree but I'd guess that's in part because the vast majority of people just don't consume enough to make an all you can eat offering work.) As perhaps both cause and effect, there's probably also something of a generational shift in which ownership of stuff you can put your hands on may just not be as appealing to many younger people, especially if they're urban dwellers without a lot of space.
- ademup 6y ago
  Owning music is made much more difficult now that the ability to use it has been greatly diminished. Many new cars don't even come with CD players. Sure, there are work arounds, but I think that moves us beyond a measure of "convenience".
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >>the ability to use it has been greatly diminished Really? I have tons of music ripped from CDs on my iPhone and I can trivially play that in my car. I have CD players in my car (which I never use) and attached to my stereo (which I rarely use). It's not that the ability to play CDs (or rip them and play them) has been diminished but a lot of people prefer to just use a streaming service. I'll grant that many people don't have a CD player even on their computer any longer but you can buy one for not much money online and have it in a couple days if you want one.
    - z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
      Which you're now being tracked when you listen to that iPod. You've made yourself the product
    - fsflover 6y ago
      > I have tons of music ripped from CDs Are you suggesting that it's a simple and convenient thing to do for the public?
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        That supports ghaff’s original point. It’s far more convenient to stream music than deal with CDs period. Automakers didn’t remove CD players despite people wanting them. They did it because enough customers were not willing to pay a premium to have the CD player. I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too.
        oarsinsync 6y ago
        > I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too. CarPlay and touch screens generally are one of the worst 'innovations' that have happened in cars in recent decades, as far as road safety goes. In the past, I would have a CD that had 5-10 albums on it, and could easily flip between them without taking my eyes off the road. I could glance up at the sleeve on my sun shade to find a different CD to switch to, and easily switch the CDs around and navigate the rest of the process by feel alone. Now I have to pull over to change albums in a reliable (siri is unreliable and doesn't work with all apps) and safe manner. It's an improvement as far as how much total music I have access to on any given journey. Does that convenience justify even one additional life lost as a result of a distracted driver? As a society, we have very loudly screamed ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY, which, like GP notes, is a real fucking shame.
- sixothree 6y ago
  I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Spotify, sometimes Youtube TV, OTA via TIVO. Trust me, TPB is much more convenient.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I can be streaming just about anything purchased/rented a la carte from Amazon in a couple of minutes. It costs more but I don't see how that's less convenient than TPB.
    - andrewprock 6y ago
      The primary challenge with today's streaming services is determining which platform the content is on, and what tier you need to have to consume the content. In that way, Amazon Video is one of the most convenient platforms as it has more content than many other platforms, though you may need to pay a rental fee. When it comes to convenience, for me unified access to the most content trumps most other issues.
      - sixothree 6y ago
        I have to add that I do have one other streaming service I did not list and that is Formula 1 TV. And I think this is an incredible example of value that can be added to television. During an event you can watch live video footage from the main feed, any of the 20 cars on the track, or the pit straights. You can listen to team radios, commentary, or just engine audio.
    - olyjohn 6y ago
      Assuming it's on Amazon... What do you do when the show you want to watch is not on there? What do you do when it's a Hulu Exclusive? Or a Netflix show? You know what I do? Search for 'movie/show name' + 'torrent' and I pull down the rip at 10MB/sec, and have it in a few minutes. Faster than signing up for another service, installing the app on all of my devices, connecting that app up to my account, adding my credit card, then paying for it. Then having to discontinue that subscription later when I decide there's nothing else on that service I want to watch. Then you realize, you paid for 1 month of service, just to watch one show... ridiculous. Streaming is only convenient when you are already subscribed to the service. Otherwise piracy is much easier. Plus I don't get my fucking videos downsampled to 720p because I choose to watch in a web browser on a Linux box.
- kdmdmdmmdmd 6y ago
  Your opinion on convenience is not relevant to this case.
rakoo 6y ago
Yes but that's not the same thing. You're arguing in the "physical/digital" debate and I believe evryone will agree that digital is better in most cases. Physically owning something is nice for the memorabilia and for those who still have DVD/CD players but that's not the biggest use case. The topic here is DRM vs non-DRM'd media. It's orthogonal to the topic of physicality: you can have DRM'd physical media (think Google Nest) and you can have non-DRM'd digital media. Switching back to the convenience of using digital instead of physical is a disservice to the discussion because it switches the focus on something that is totally unrelated and makes people believe that those who prefer non-DRM'd media are somehow reluctant to adopting streaming platform. I definitely see the convenience of it: I barely have any music files on my computer, I stream it all from Youtube or Soundcloud or Bandcamp. And like you I have spent MUCH more money on artists now that I can stream them than when I bought CDs. But when I want to get the files for offline use I know I'm in good hands because those platforms allow me to do it and have files I can use forever without ever reconnecting to the mothership. So, to come back the initial point: yes we got scammed, because we didn't read the fine print. We didn't understand that DRM'd media is never bought, it's always rented. We switched from buy-it-for-life to subscribe-until-the-platform-dies
- andrewljohnson 6y ago
  I think the point is it’s not a scam because these businesses are of value to you overall. That they decided they needed DRM to make sustainable business is unfortunate but doesn’t make it a scam. The words may be scammy in this case, but digital media is better than physical media and you get the good with the bad.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    You have an interesting definition of scam. For me "selling" you something by misrepresenting what it is, is pretty much the definition of a scam to me. It does not matter if it had some convenience to me. E.g. If I was sold a new iPhone online (maybe when it was currently not available on the apple store) and I later found out it was used (and I e.g. can't get warranty) I would say I have been scammed, even though it was convenient for me to buy it from some vendor online and I didn't have to wait for it to be back in stock at apple.
toss1 6y ago
Fine, but selling convenience is DIFFERENT from selling possession. Alan may want convenience of streaming a large library for a low price. Barbara may want the conveniece of having physical media she can bring on her travels and play without an internet connection, or the ability to play it 20 years from now and give to her kids. That is all fine, they are two different things The scam is selling the rental of transient streaming service rental as if it had the attributes of buying physical media. Apple and others are exploiting the familiarity and positive connotations of "buying a movie/album" to sell something that clearly lacks the same attributes. It is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and it is a scam.
- T3RMINATED 6y ago
  Try opening a book from the Microsoft eBook store. It will fail because they closed down the DRM servers. The books stopped working. PlayStation 3 store? Wii store? Same story. You can no longer access your purchases.
datavirtue 6y ago
They are leveraging the connotation of "buy" to get you to give them money. If they used the words lease, rent, or borrow or explicitly stated the purchase may be for a limited time then consumers' brow would furl as they pulled away from the action button. That is bad for conversion. This is classic anti-market behavior.
kdmdmdmmdmd 6y ago
I get where you are coming from but I don’t really care what you buy movies for and I don’t really understand what that has to do with this topic. This isn’t a wishy washy political or abstract technical topic. Its a legal interpretation. Did you really need to reiterate yourself three times? Are you even really trying to participate in the conversation here are you trying to derail?
tomc1985 6y ago
The convenience argument is such bullshit. We have been seduced into selling our rights down the river because we will sacrifice anything to this most pathetic of gods, Convenience. I have been fighting in this war (anti-DRM/copyleft/etc) for decades, and peoples' susceptibility to convenience has always effectively thwarted any kind of counter argument. We are fucking lazy and we should be ashamed of it. Yes I am bitter, we could have had a world of power, control, and ownership at our fingers... a cornucopia of content on our terms... computers that well and truly serve us and not some wanterpreneurial, rent-seeking master... but it wouldn't have been as convenient. And now zoomers, seduced by corporate sponsorships and the cozy fiefdoms of communities like YouTube or TikTok, have almost no concept of files or their utility, of the value of owning something detached from a profiteering cloud. They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them. It is all complete, utter horseshit. We fought for a better world that nobody wanted because it wasn't as convenient
- pchristensen 6y ago
  How long did it take for you to write the machine code that posted this comment?
  - salawat 6y ago
    Nice deflection, but the poster is absolutely right. It's a difficulty I'm having to teach the little ones in my life around. Without the understanding of the real foundational units of computing, but a "flawless" User Experience that results in the ability to get things done regardless, we're decoupling the operating the computer from understanding it, and creating an unhealthy divergence and captive audience. This is unacceptable, and a has terrible implications for the next generation.
    - fanciestManimal 6y ago
      Do you think there are (per capita) more or fewer software developers today than there were in 1980? I kind of think the inverse of your point is true, to be frank. On a per capita basis, I think it's it likely that way more people understand the fundamentals of computing. I just think software has made computing more accessible to people that don't know the fundamentals, which I think is a good thing. I don't think operating computers should be a gatekeeping exercise where you can't use it if you don't understand what machine instructions are, or c.
minusSeven 6y ago
Well that is service vs non service model. For example lets say you buy a ebook from Amazon. You expect the book to stay with you forever. It costs Amazon next to nothing to transfer the 5mb of book data I need to read the book. Compare that with subscription to Kindle unlimited. You get some books you can read but lose access to them once you unsubscribe. You are not being lied to in the subscription model but it seems the digital buying isn't quite honest.
- __david__ 6y ago
  Yeah, I think that's why I object much less to Netflix's DRM than to iTunes DRM on movies that I've "bought". Netflix, HBO+, Disney+ never give you the illusion that anything involving them is permanent.
browningstreet 6y ago
I've been buying some DVDs off Amazon lately because the movies I want to watch, some of which aren't even that old, haven't been on any streaming service at any price. Pretty inconvenient. If we live in a world without physical media, some things will simply disappear forever.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blendergeek 6y ago
Remember when we could buy mp3s on the iTunes store? Why can't we buy our movies as mp4s on the Apple Movies store? I would have convenience (more convenience than I have now, I argue). They could still have a cloud offering that only lasts as long as they feel like it. That would be enough to make this lawsuit go away. So, no, it isn't that we are now buying convenience so we must bend our backs to their spying and control. We had both freedom and control in the digital music ecosystem for more than ten years.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> I pay for convenience which is a service rather than tangible good. Piracy is often more convenient than going through the hurdles of a legal purchase.
ycombigator 6y ago
Bollocks more like. A fraudulent contract is not a contract.

ghaff 6y ago

I used to be somewhat skeptical of the convenience claim. A former colleague argued that the attraction of Napster was more about convenience than price which I didn't really buy. But if we look at the popularity of streaming services today versus owning even DRM-free music, that would seem to support the convenience theory. (It hasn't taken off for books to the same degree but I'd guess that's in part because the vast majority of people just don't consume enough to make an all you can eat offering work.) As perhaps both cause and effect, there's probably also something of a generational shift in which ownership of stuff you can put your hands on may just not be as appealing to many younger people, especially if they're urban dwellers without a lot of space.

ademup 6y ago
Owning music is made much more difficult now that the ability to use it has been greatly diminished. Many new cars don't even come with CD players. Sure, there are work arounds, but I think that moves us beyond a measure of "convenience".
- ghaff 6y ago
  >>the ability to use it has been greatly diminished Really? I have tons of music ripped from CDs on my iPhone and I can trivially play that in my car. I have CD players in my car (which I never use) and attached to my stereo (which I rarely use). It's not that the ability to play CDs (or rip them and play them) has been diminished but a lot of people prefer to just use a streaming service. I'll grant that many people don't have a CD player even on their computer any longer but you can buy one for not much money online and have it in a couple days if you want one.
  - z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
    Which you're now being tracked when you listen to that iPod. You've made yourself the product
  - fsflover 6y ago
    > I have tons of music ripped from CDs Are you suggesting that it's a simple and convenient thing to do for the public?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      That supports ghaff’s original point. It’s far more convenient to stream music than deal with CDs period. Automakers didn’t remove CD players despite people wanting them. They did it because enough customers were not willing to pay a premium to have the CD player. I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too.
      - oarsinsync 6y ago
        > I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too. CarPlay and touch screens generally are one of the worst 'innovations' that have happened in cars in recent decades, as far as road safety goes. In the past, I would have a CD that had 5-10 albums on it, and could easily flip between them without taking my eyes off the road. I could glance up at the sleeve on my sun shade to find a different CD to switch to, and easily switch the CDs around and navigate the rest of the process by feel alone. Now I have to pull over to change albums in a reliable (siri is unreliable and doesn't work with all apps) and safe manner. It's an improvement as far as how much total music I have access to on any given journey. Does that convenience justify even one additional life lost as a result of a distracted driver? As a society, we have very loudly screamed ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY, which, like GP notes, is a real fucking shame.
sixothree 6y ago
I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Spotify, sometimes Youtube TV, OTA via TIVO. Trust me, TPB is much more convenient.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I can be streaming just about anything purchased/rented a la carte from Amazon in a couple of minutes. It costs more but I don't see how that's less convenient than TPB.
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    The primary challenge with today's streaming services is determining which platform the content is on, and what tier you need to have to consume the content. In that way, Amazon Video is one of the most convenient platforms as it has more content than many other platforms, though you may need to pay a rental fee. When it comes to convenience, for me unified access to the most content trumps most other issues.
    - sixothree 6y ago
      I have to add that I do have one other streaming service I did not list and that is Formula 1 TV. And I think this is an incredible example of value that can be added to television. During an event you can watch live video footage from the main feed, any of the 20 cars on the track, or the pit straights. You can listen to team radios, commentary, or just engine audio.
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    Assuming it's on Amazon... What do you do when the show you want to watch is not on there? What do you do when it's a Hulu Exclusive? Or a Netflix show? You know what I do? Search for 'movie/show name' + 'torrent' and I pull down the rip at 10MB/sec, and have it in a few minutes. Faster than signing up for another service, installing the app on all of my devices, connecting that app up to my account, adding my credit card, then paying for it. Then having to discontinue that subscription later when I decide there's nothing else on that service I want to watch. Then you realize, you paid for 1 month of service, just to watch one show... ridiculous. Streaming is only convenient when you are already subscribed to the service. Otherwise piracy is much easier. Plus I don't get my fucking videos downsampled to 720p because I choose to watch in a web browser on a Linux box.
kdmdmdmmdmd 6y ago
Your opinion on convenience is not relevant to this case.

rakoo 6y ago

Yes but that's not the same thing. You're arguing in the "physical/digital" debate and I believe evryone will agree that digital is better in most cases. Physically owning something is nice for the memorabilia and for those who still have DVD/CD players but that's not the biggest use case. The topic here is DRM vs non-DRM'd media. It's orthogonal to the topic of physicality: you can have DRM'd physical media (think Google Nest) and you can have non-DRM'd digital media. Switching back to the convenience of using digital instead of physical is a disservice to the discussion because it switches the focus on something that is totally unrelated and makes people believe that those who prefer non-DRM'd media are somehow reluctant to adopting streaming platform. I definitely see the convenience of it: I barely have any music files on my computer, I stream it all from Youtube or Soundcloud or Bandcamp. And like you I have spent MUCH more money on artists now that I can stream them than when I bought CDs. But when I want to get the files for offline use I know I'm in good hands because those platforms allow me to do it and have files I can use forever without ever reconnecting to the mothership. So, to come back the initial point: yes we got scammed, because we didn't read the fine print. We didn't understand that DRM'd media is never bought, it's always rented. We switched from buy-it-for-life to subscribe-until-the-platform-dies

andrewljohnson 6y ago
I think the point is it’s not a scam because these businesses are of value to you overall. That they decided they needed DRM to make sustainable business is unfortunate but doesn’t make it a scam. The words may be scammy in this case, but digital media is better than physical media and you get the good with the bad.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  You have an interesting definition of scam. For me "selling" you something by misrepresenting what it is, is pretty much the definition of a scam to me. It does not matter if it had some convenience to me. E.g. If I was sold a new iPhone online (maybe when it was currently not available on the apple store) and I later found out it was used (and I e.g. can't get warranty) I would say I have been scammed, even though it was convenient for me to buy it from some vendor online and I didn't have to wait for it to be back in stock at apple.

toss1 6y ago

Fine, but selling convenience is DIFFERENT from selling possession. Alan may want convenience of streaming a large library for a low price. Barbara may want the conveniece of having physical media she can bring on her travels and play without an internet connection, or the ability to play it 20 years from now and give to her kids. That is all fine, they are two different things The scam is selling the rental of transient streaming service rental as if it had the attributes of buying physical media. Apple and others are exploiting the familiarity and positive connotations of "buying a movie/album" to sell something that clearly lacks the same attributes. It is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and it is a scam.

T3RMINATED 6y ago
Try opening a book from the Microsoft eBook store. It will fail because they closed down the DRM servers. The books stopped working. PlayStation 3 store? Wii store? Same story. You can no longer access your purchases.

datavirtue 6y ago

They are leveraging the connotation of "buy" to get you to give them money. If they used the words lease, rent, or borrow or explicitly stated the purchase may be for a limited time then consumers' brow would furl as they pulled away from the action button. That is bad for conversion. This is classic anti-market behavior.

kdmdmdmmdmd 6y ago

I get where you are coming from but I don’t really care what you buy movies for and I don’t really understand what that has to do with this topic. This isn’t a wishy washy political or abstract technical topic. Its a legal interpretation. Did you really need to reiterate yourself three times? Are you even really trying to participate in the conversation here are you trying to derail?

tomc1985 6y ago

The convenience argument is such bullshit. We have been seduced into selling our rights down the river because we will sacrifice anything to this most pathetic of gods, Convenience. I have been fighting in this war (anti-DRM/copyleft/etc) for decades, and peoples' susceptibility to convenience has always effectively thwarted any kind of counter argument. We are fucking lazy and we should be ashamed of it. Yes I am bitter, we could have had a world of power, control, and ownership at our fingers... a cornucopia of content on our terms... computers that well and truly serve us and not some wanterpreneurial, rent-seeking master... but it wouldn't have been as convenient. And now zoomers, seduced by corporate sponsorships and the cozy fiefdoms of communities like YouTube or TikTok, have almost no concept of files or their utility, of the value of owning something detached from a profiteering cloud. They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them. It is all complete, utter horseshit. We fought for a better world that nobody wanted because it wasn't as convenient

pchristensen 6y ago
How long did it take for you to write the machine code that posted this comment?
- salawat 6y ago
  Nice deflection, but the poster is absolutely right. It's a difficulty I'm having to teach the little ones in my life around. Without the understanding of the real foundational units of computing, but a "flawless" User Experience that results in the ability to get things done regardless, we're decoupling the operating the computer from understanding it, and creating an unhealthy divergence and captive audience. This is unacceptable, and a has terrible implications for the next generation.
  - fanciestManimal 6y ago
    Do you think there are (per capita) more or fewer software developers today than there were in 1980? I kind of think the inverse of your point is true, to be frank. On a per capita basis, I think it's it likely that way more people understand the fundamentals of computing. I just think software has made computing more accessible to people that don't know the fundamentals, which I think is a good thing. I don't think operating computers should be a gatekeeping exercise where you can't use it if you don't understand what machine instructions are, or c.

minusSeven 6y ago

Well that is service vs non service model. For example lets say you buy a ebook from Amazon. You expect the book to stay with you forever. It costs Amazon next to nothing to transfer the 5mb of book data I need to read the book. Compare that with subscription to Kindle unlimited. You get some books you can read but lose access to them once you unsubscribe. You are not being lied to in the subscription model but it seems the digital buying isn't quite honest.

__david__ 6y ago
Yeah, I think that's why I object much less to Netflix's DRM than to iTunes DRM on movies that I've "bought". Netflix, HBO+, Disney+ never give you the illusion that anything involving them is permanent.

browningstreet 6y ago

I've been buying some DVDs off Amazon lately because the movies I want to watch, some of which aren't even that old, haven't been on any streaming service at any price. Pretty inconvenient. If we live in a world without physical media, some things will simply disappear forever.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

blendergeek 6y ago

Remember when we could buy mp3s on the iTunes store? Why can't we buy our movies as mp4s on the Apple Movies store? I would have convenience (more convenience than I have now, I argue). They could still have a cloud offering that only lasts as long as they feel like it. That would be enough to make this lawsuit go away. So, no, it isn't that we are now buying convenience so we must bend our backs to their spying and control. We had both freedom and control in the digital music ecosystem for more than ten years.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> I pay for convenience which is a service rather than tangible good. Piracy is often more convenient than going through the hurdles of a legal purchase.

ycombigator 6y ago

Bollocks more like. A fraudulent contract is not a contract.