6 ms·

https://superuser.com/questions/251369/what-is-the-lifespan-of-dvd-and-blu-ray-discs#251372 https://superuser.com/questions/251369/what-is-the-lifespan-... Whe

https://superuser.com/questions/251369/what-is-the-lifespan-of-dvd-and-blu-ray-discs#251372 https://superuser.com/questions/251369/what-is-the-lifespan-... When your media is advertised to last for 100 years, it is reasonable to want a replacement when it lasts less than a quarter of that time

hombre_fatal 2y ago
I don't think it's obviously reasonable unless you also get (or pay for) a 100 year manufacturer's warranty. Yet the comments here talk like we have norms that don't exist. The actual norms we have are that you're SOL if your product breaks after the warranty, even due to a defect, and even for things that cost 1000x the price of a DVD.
- snailmailstare 2y ago
  In the case of copyright you are not buying the media. You are buying a licensed right sent as media. If they wish to make no impediments to making a backup then maybe they have no fault.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    You are buying a DVD with the content on it. That's why it's $15 and not some sort of unlimited digital license that Netflex pays $millions for. The fact that it's a limited license attached to the physical disc only makes my case more clear, I think. There's even less expectation that I have some claim to the content if the disc breaks in 20 years.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      I don't understand why so many posters in this thread are being seemingly intentionally obtuse and insisting that the terms of of the original transaction are something entirely different from what it was. I expect better from this sites users than such naivety.
      - snailmailstare 2y ago
        Copyright law has a long history ported from earlier media. People here want to say media is just some product but the US decided that is in no way true.
        TylerE 2y ago
        The nuance that most people miss is that prior to about the 1960s, books were effectively uncopyable on anything resembling scale. The only options would be to either copy it out in long hand in pen, or on a more industrial level to create new printing plates from scratch, resetting the entire thing character by character. You also wouldn't easily be able to replicate things like photographs or drawings. It was only with the advent of toner based xerox in the 70s that photocopying books became vaguely practical, but still cost about 5 cents a page, at a time when a mass market paperback might cost $1.25.
    - snailmailstare 2y ago
      You are paying more for the DVD because copyright law and fair use apply to it including the right to backup. Companies prefer to sell you new online licensing as a scam. The US didn't correctly defend the right to backup, but that leaves a funny grey zone where WB being bad at making DVDs means less ability to shame "piracy" tool makers because backups is normalized and in no way suspicious if the media isn't perfect like they said.
    - Teever 2y ago
      That's weird because in countries where you're allowed to make backups of things you buy they still cost around $15.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Warranty is in no way predicated on issues of copyright or ability to backup. Warranty law applies to a copy of A Court of Thorns and Roses the same way it applies to a copy of Frankenstein. Warranty is about fitness for use, merchantability, and honoring sales contracts. It has nothing to do with issues of intellectual property. If you sold someone a book, filled with public domain content, and the ink faded after a week, you can't just throw up your hands and say that the buyer should have made another copy. You'd likely be liable for warranty of merchantability.
- kube-system 2y ago
  > The actual norms we have are that you're SOL if your product breaks after the warranty, even due to a defect, and even for things that cost 1000x the price of a DVD. That's not technically true. Implied warranties are a thing. The law in the US and many other places does place obligations of warranty on sellers beyond the whims of their voluntary warranties. There's a reason every piece of FOSS software doesn't simply come without a warranty, they all disclaim warranty. Now it isn't likely that it would be applicable to products quite as old as these, but the idea that "the manufacturer's written warranty is the only warranty" is a total falsehood that large companies want you to believe.
- toast0 2y ago
  I've got bitrotted cds that the case says lifetime warranty or something similar. Of course, it also doesn't include contact information for getting a replacement, and I don't have a receipt for cds I bought 30 years ago, so there's that.
karaterobot 2y ago
And that's what WB is offering, isn't it? A replacement. The question is whether you should expect to own and use something for almost 20 years, then get a refund. It'd be nice if they provided one, but I wouldn't say it's obvious to me that they must. When no replacement discs are available, that's a more interesting edge case where they should feel obligated to do something to make it right in some other way, and I'd say a refund should be on the table.
- undersuit 2y ago
  >However, as some of the affected titles are no longer in print or the rights have expired, consumers have been offered an exchange for a title of like-value. I'll trade you a copy of "Big Momma's House 2" for your damaged copy of "The Two Towers".
- lxgr 2y ago
  A refund of 2025 dollars for a purchase made in 2005 ones doesn't sound like a great deal. I bet it wouldn't even cover the cost of "buying" the same movie again digitally in many cases.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

I don't think it's obviously reasonable unless you also get (or pay for) a 100 year manufacturer's warranty. Yet the comments here talk like we have norms that don't exist. The actual norms we have are that you're SOL if your product breaks after the warranty, even due to a defect, and even for things that cost 1000x the price of a DVD.

snailmailstare 2y ago
In the case of copyright you are not buying the media. You are buying a licensed right sent as media. If they wish to make no impediments to making a backup then maybe they have no fault.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  You are buying a DVD with the content on it. That's why it's $15 and not some sort of unlimited digital license that Netflex pays $millions for. The fact that it's a limited license attached to the physical disc only makes my case more clear, I think. There's even less expectation that I have some claim to the content if the disc breaks in 20 years.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    I don't understand why so many posters in this thread are being seemingly intentionally obtuse and insisting that the terms of of the original transaction are something entirely different from what it was. I expect better from this sites users than such naivety.
    - snailmailstare 2y ago
      Copyright law has a long history ported from earlier media. People here want to say media is just some product but the US decided that is in no way true.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        The nuance that most people miss is that prior to about the 1960s, books were effectively uncopyable on anything resembling scale. The only options would be to either copy it out in long hand in pen, or on a more industrial level to create new printing plates from scratch, resetting the entire thing character by character. You also wouldn't easily be able to replicate things like photographs or drawings. It was only with the advent of toner based xerox in the 70s that photocopying books became vaguely practical, but still cost about 5 cents a page, at a time when a mass market paperback might cost $1.25.
  - snailmailstare 2y ago
    You are paying more for the DVD because copyright law and fair use apply to it including the right to backup. Companies prefer to sell you new online licensing as a scam. The US didn't correctly defend the right to backup, but that leaves a funny grey zone where WB being bad at making DVDs means less ability to shame "piracy" tool makers because backups is normalized and in no way suspicious if the media isn't perfect like they said.
  - Teever 2y ago
    That's weird because in countries where you're allowed to make backups of things you buy they still cost around $15.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Warranty is in no way predicated on issues of copyright or ability to backup. Warranty law applies to a copy of A Court of Thorns and Roses the same way it applies to a copy of Frankenstein. Warranty is about fitness for use, merchantability, and honoring sales contracts. It has nothing to do with issues of intellectual property. If you sold someone a book, filled with public domain content, and the ink faded after a week, you can't just throw up your hands and say that the buyer should have made another copy. You'd likely be liable for warranty of merchantability.
kube-system 2y ago
> The actual norms we have are that you're SOL if your product breaks after the warranty, even due to a defect, and even for things that cost 1000x the price of a DVD. That's not technically true. Implied warranties are a thing. The law in the US and many other places does place obligations of warranty on sellers beyond the whims of their voluntary warranties. There's a reason every piece of FOSS software doesn't simply come without a warranty, they all disclaim warranty. Now it isn't likely that it would be applicable to products quite as old as these, but the idea that "the manufacturer's written warranty is the only warranty" is a total falsehood that large companies want you to believe.
toast0 2y ago
I've got bitrotted cds that the case says lifetime warranty or something similar. Of course, it also doesn't include contact information for getting a replacement, and I don't have a receipt for cds I bought 30 years ago, so there's that.

karaterobot 2y ago

And that's what WB is offering, isn't it? A replacement. The question is whether you should expect to own and use something for almost 20 years, then get a refund. It'd be nice if they provided one, but I wouldn't say it's obvious to me that they must. When no replacement discs are available, that's a more interesting edge case where they should feel obligated to do something to make it right in some other way, and I'd say a refund should be on the table.

undersuit 2y ago
>However, as some of the affected titles are no longer in print or the rights have expired, consumers have been offered an exchange for a title of like-value. I'll trade you a copy of "Big Momma's House 2" for your damaged copy of "The Two Towers".
lxgr 2y ago
A refund of 2025 dollars for a purchase made in 2005 ones doesn't sound like a great deal. I bet it wouldn't even cover the cost of "buying" the same movie again digitally in many cases.