PSA: A reminder on why you should maintain copies of movies

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

First, Apple didn't delete the movie.

So I'm not allowed to take any of my legally obtained dvd's with me if I move to another country?   There are no laws here that enforce dvd/bluray region locks, in fact it is perfectly legal for anyone to circumvent such locks and by DVD's from anywhere they want.

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Commodus said:

He is... but this isn't really Apple's fault, it's the movie studios.  You see what I'm saying?  I'm sure Apple would love to make every purchase available in all countries (it'd be a whole lot simpler), but media licensing agreements and local laws may prevent that.  Apple isn't about to end movie deals or break the law just so that an Australian can watch his movies in Canada without jumping through hoops.  If you want a fix for this, petition the government... don't petition the company whose hands are tied.

The only thing that should prevent a company from distributing content is local LAW,  Licensing is something Apple signed, therefor apples fault and apples problem. They should offer him a refund not rentals.

[Commodus]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The only thing that should prevent a company from distributing content is local LAW,  Licensing is something Apple signed, therefor apples fault and apples problem. They should offer him a refund not rentals.

Well, not really, because the choice was to either abide by the terms or not carry any of a given studio's movies.  It can't offer a video service with no videos.  Petition your government to mandate region-free movies; don't just assume Apple can work a negotiating miracle.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Well, not really, because the choice was to either abide by the terms or not carry any of a given studio's movies.  It can't offer a video service with no videos.  Petition your government to mandate region-free movies; don't just assume Apple can work a negotiating miracle.

We have region free movies, The fact that they region code is moot as there is no law that governs geoblocking.  He bought a product, it does not matter that the product he bought was digital instead of a hard copy, he paid for the rights to own a copy of that movie and now apple are not giving him access to that movie.  Whatever deals apple sign with other companies is moot,  If they can't provide the product they sell then they should not be allowed to sell it and at the very least they should offer a full refund not rentals.

 

There are no assumptions to be made here, in fact given I can take my DVDs to Canada perfectly legally it is a fair assumption that there is no part of any contract they signed that prevents them from maintaining a previous purchase.  In fact there are very few legal contracts (if any) that trump consumer law.

 

Especially in countries like Canada and absolutely in countries like Australia.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

No, it's not.  I sympathize with your situation, but as I said: you're not entitled to get something for free (certainly not a luxury like entertainment) just because you can't afford it.  Do you think it's okay to steal a Blu-ray or DVD from the local store?  No, of course not.  But why is it okay to steal a movie just because there's no plastic disc?  You're still hurting someone, it's just that there's no physical evidence of it.

I agree that he's not entitled to download what he wants for free, and I also agree it's not okay to do it, but let's not conflate disparate issues.  Copyright violation =/= theft.  There's a reason that copyright violation is a completely separate section of the law from stealing, because they are completely separate issues.  In fact, when the RIAA was in full swing a few years back, they didn't even attempt to go after the downloaders.  They only went after people who were also uploading the files.

11 hours ago, Commodus said:

First, Apple didn't delete the movie.  There's been a lot of conjecture that mostly stems from people looking for an excuse to hate on the company.  It's actually a regional issue that stems from the person in question moving countries and switching regional settings in such a way that he lost access.  You can pin that on the movie studios, not Apple.

Apple is still the ones who took away the legitimately purchased product, so it's still about Apple.  This isn't about hating on any company, it's about fair use rights under the law.  He paid for a product, and is now being denied said product simply because he moved.  That's the unequivocal facts.

[ARikozuM]

On 9/13/2018 at 4:37 PM, mr moose said:

 Most older people I know don't give a fuck, if they aren't happy with the content on the box or the content on netflix they turn it of and go play golf or go to the bar.

Holy sh#t, you're old! 

Spoiler

/s

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Holy sh#t, you're old! 

  Hide contents

/s

 

Just finished 18 holes then.  And yes, it was better than watching the shit they broadcast these days. 

[NF-F12]

It is important to remember that when purchasing digital content, you are very often purchasing a license to use the content rather than the right to a persistent/permanent copy of it.

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, NF-F12 said:

It is important to remember that when purchasing digital content, you are very often purchasing a license to use the content rather than the right to a persistent/permanent copy of it.

In Australia it is considered a product.  Games are considered products, cds and movies are considered products.  He purchased a product from apple and now due only to artificial limitations applied by apple, the product is no longer fit for it's intended purpose.  He may have no legal recourse due to being outside of Australia now, but given this type of product has no legal impediments to its provision (in either country) and given the impediments to this product are artificially created by the company it is by definition theft (apple have taken his money and he has nothing to show for it). 

[Tellos]

@mr moose No Apple did nothing but comply with a contract they otherwise woudl be sued for and forced to do anyways. IP holders [Intellectual property] can do this and once they revoke said rights there is NOTHING a company can do. My own has had this occurs over negotiations before. Losing channels people love but where we refuse to pay boat loads more cash just so we have to raise the prices to make up for another company jsut wanting more moeny.

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@mr moose No Apple did nothing but comply with a contract they otherwise woudl be sued for and forced to do anyways. IP holders [Intellectual property] can do this and once they revoke said rights there is NOTHING a company can do. My own has had this occurs over negotiations before. Losing channels people love but where we refuse to pay boat loads more cash just so we have to raise the prices to make up for another company jsut wanting more moeny.

yeah, that's what the other bloke was trying to say too, but those contracts are moot.  It is a product that a consumer bought and corporate contracts do not trump consumer law:

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

We have region free movies, The fact that they region code is moot as there is no law that governs geoblocking.  He bought a product, it does not matter that the product he bought was digital instead of a hard copy, he paid for the rights to own a copy of that movie and now apple are not giving him access to that movie.  Whatever deals apple sign with other companies is moot,  If they can't provide the product they sell then they should not be allowed to sell it and at the very least they should offer a full refund not rentals.

 

There are no assumptions to be made here, in fact given I can take my DVDs to Canada perfectly legally it is a fair assumption that there is no part of any contract they signed that prevents them from maintaining a previous purchase.  In fact there are very few legal contracts (if any) that trump consumer law.

 

Especially in countries like Canada and absolutely in countries like Australia.

 

[Tellos]

@mr mooseok so then shall we say the contracts made by companies with you are moot? It goes both ways and no company is going to eat a billion dollar lawsuit for you. If anybody should have to provide a copy or refund it's the IP holder.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@mr mooseok so then shall we say the contracts made by companies with you are moot? It goes both ways and no company is going to eat a billion dollar lawsuit for you. If anybody should have to provide a copy or refund it's the IP holder.

WTF?  so you think it's ok for companies to have contracts that basically allow them to renege on a sale and leave the consumer with nothing?  As I said before, If apple can;t maintain the products they sell then they shouldn't sell them, no one should.  The fact he moved countries is irrelevant, the fact the product is digital is irrelevant,  he was sold a product he can no longer use because apple signed a contract with another company that they decided meant they could put up artificial blockades to content the consumer has already paid for.  This is morally wrong, artificially crafted and there are no laws that condone the practices nor support it.  

 

 

[Tellos]

@mr moose then contact your government? They are the one who made these laws not the companies. They dont need to be arrested for you. So again do oyu want laws applied or not? If not fine then when a guy takes your car your SOL cause well if we jsut can ignore laws and ownership rules then nobody will bother. Is it good this happened no but governments made this issue with silly laws.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Tellos said:

@mr moose then contact your government? They are the one who made these laws not the companies. They dont need to be arrested for you. So again do oyu want laws applied or not? If not fine then when a guy takes your car your SOL cause well if we jsut can ignore laws and ownership rules then nobody will bother. Is it good this happened no but governments made this issue with silly laws.

that doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to infer it's the governments fault?

[Tellos]

@mr moose well they wrote the laws apple is forced to comply with regarding intellectual property.  And failure to comply can come with lawsuits and possibly  depending on the infraction government penalties. These laws are enforced by government power so no they wont take a bullet for you here.  basically a contract is a legally binding agreement, IF you breach it you get in trouble. So if apple jsut told all these companies where to shove it they get suited into bankruptcy you lose ALL your stuff you didint back up.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Tellos said:

@mr moose well they wrote the laws apple is forced to comply with regarding intellectual property. 

There are no laws that enforce geoblocking, not in Canada, not in Australia and not even in the US.   There are no laws that make it a contractual obligation to remove content from a customer.

1 minute ago, Tellos said:

 

And failure to comply can come with lawsuits and possibly  depending on the infraction government penalties.

Then apple should be careful what they are signing. Apple should be making allowances for the fact that people do move countries and that maybe they should be not selling such products or offering refunds.

1 minute ago, Tellos said:

These laws are enforced by government power so no they wont take a bullet for you here.  basically a contract is a legally binding agreement, IF you breach it you get in trouble. So if apple jsut told all these companies where to shove it they get suited into bankruptcy you lose ALL your stuff you didint back up.

Have you got a citation there, because here in Australia that is not the case at all, (as I have said way too many times) corporate contracts do not trump consumer law. In fact as soon as a consumer is disadvantaged unfairly (like in this case) even direct contracts between seller and consumer are dissolved by the courts. And I am pretty sure Canadian law is not much different.

[Tellos]

@mr moose  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, first-time copyright infringement cases can carry a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison. If you get caught more than once in a copyright-infringement case, you could face additional fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.

 

Meanwhile perdue university says the following.

 

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

 

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed.
Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.
The Court can impound the illegal works.
The infringer can go to jail.

 

also for another country

 

In its book, "Copyright System in Japan", the title of this section is to "secure the effectiveness of rights by utilizing new technologies" (Japan Copyright Office 2001, 32). This shows clearly that the Japanese government considers software to be a tool for enforcing copyright legislation. Not mentioned, however, is the possible negative side-effects concerning fair use (limitation on rights), or the reach of the public domain.

Under the section (in the same book) pertaining to the "(r)egulation of the circumvention of technological measures such as copy protection, etc.", it is stated that "transfer to the public (of) the ownership of, and manufacture, etc. of, the devices to circumvent technological measures (e.g., copy protection), which prevent copying of videogram (sic) or music CD without authorization, are regulated by the (sic) criminal penalty" (Japan Copyright Office 2001, 32). It is quite clear that with this regulation, it becomes impossible to circumvent the copyright-protection of intellectual property in the context of fair use. This means that when a CD, etc. is copyright-protected, there is not only technically no space for fair use, but also from the legislative side, there is no support for copying in the context of fair use.

[mr moose]

Just now, Tellos said:

@mr moose  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, first-time copyright infringement cases can carry a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison. If you get caught more than once in a copyright-infringement case, you could face additional fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.

 

Meanwhile perdue university says the following.

 

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

 

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed.
Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.
The Court can impound the illegal works.
The infringer can go to jail.
 

 

huh?

 

This is not a copyright infringement case.  The consumer paid for a legal copy of a movie, he moved to another country where apple does not have the right to sell that movie.  the problem here is apples, not the consumers, apple needs to give the man a full refund.  But they haven't, I don't care how many contracts apple signs with how many other companies, they have sold him a product they can;t support.  Full refund or provide the content.  But hiding behind made up geological limitations and artificial licensing barriers is Bullshit,  When apple refused a refund it became theft pure and simple.

 

[Tellos]

@mr moose but if the company continues to distribute once told to cease it IS one. That includes giving you a new copy.

[mr moose]

Just now, Tellos said:

@mr moose but if the company continues to distribute once told to cease it IS one.

If they can't provide support for the product they sell then they shouldn't sell it in the first place and at the very least they should offer a full refund.

 

AGAIN:

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

hiding behind made up geological limitations and artificial licensing barriers is Bullshit,  When apple refused a refund it became theft pure and simple.

 

 

[Tellos]

@mr moose then I suggest never buying a digital anything ever again. Or as i said call your government officials.

[mr moose]

Just now, Tellos said:

@mr moose then I suggest never buying a digital anything ever again. Or as i said call your government officials.

Or maybe we as consumers should hold companies that sell digital products to a higher standard and actually make them offer the service they promise everyone, not the service they keep in fine print at the bottom of a hundred page EULA.  

 

This has nothing to do with governments unless they can find a way to enforce consumer law internationally.   It is just theft from apple at the bequest of rights holders.  And it is THEFT, the gentlemen paid for that content honestly and fairly.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Tellos said:

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

Why the heck are you even bringing up copyright infringement?  This is not about copyright at all, it's about whether paying for a product means you get to keep said product when you move.  That's it.  Copyright has no place in this argument.  The only reason I mentioned it earlier was because of the discussion of illegal downloads.  The guy mentioned in the OP didn't illegally download anything, he bought a product from the Apple iTunes store and is now being denied access to his legitimately purchased product.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Or maybe we as consumers should hold companies that sell digital products to a higher standard and actually make them offer the service they promise everyone, not the service they keep in fine print at the bottom of a hundred page EULA.  

 

This has nothing to do with governments unless they can find a way to enforce consumer law internationally.   It is just theft from apple at the bequest of rights holders.  And it is THEFT, the gentlemen paid for that content honestly and fairly.

What I find funny, is that I have had several heated debates with you regarding things such as privacy in Windows 10, Apple using complicated schemes just to avoid paying taxes and so on, and every time I have bought up arguments for why it is wrong, you have always gone back to "it's legal so therefore it is OK" or "it's in the TOS so therefore you knew what you were getting into and agreed to it". At one point you ever said that I can't criticize a company for doing something that is legal.

 

But for some reason in this particular instance, which is geoblocking, you seem to be completely against it?

 

Sorry but the current copyright laws allows this to happen. As you have told me several times in the past, "if you don't like it, vote for a government which won't allow it".

 

And sorry but this is not theft. He can still access the movie in the country he bought his license to view it in. 

 

 

It's no fun being on the "this should be wrong and illegal. Why aren't people upset" side of things, is it? Now you know how I have felt when talking to you several times.

 

 

 

Also, the reason why these types of things happen is because licensing deals are negotiated on a country by country basis.

 

Take Kung Fury as an example. It's a film made in Sweden through Kickstarter. A Swedish TV channel bought the exclusive rights to it in Sweden (I believe for a limited time). Most if not all other countries were able to view it on YouTube, but not people in Sweden since those rights belonged to the channel TV4 (I think it was TV4).

Should a Canadian staying on holiday be allowed to view Kung Fury on Youtube despite TV4 having a deal promising them exclusive distribution inside Sweden? In that case TV4 aren't earning any money from the rights they bought. And if the Canadian should be allowed to view it, what system should be in place to allow that to happen? It get very complicated really quickly, because Youtube's servers can't differentiate between a Canadian in Sweden, and a Swede in Sweden. At least not in a way which doesn't allow for abuse (for example checking the account's country) and that could lead to piracy (a Swede watching the video on Youtube).

 

 

16 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Copyright has no place in this argument.

I agree that copyright infringement doesn't have any place in this conversation, but copyright law much certainly does. That's what is enabling companies to make these kinds of deals and licensing agreements to begin with.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

he bought a product from the Apple iTunes store and is now being denied access to his legitimately purchased product.

He is only being denied access to it in countries where Apple does not have the legal permission to provide it to him. If he moves back then he will regain access to it.

Think of it as being 18 and buying booze in a country where the legal drinking age is 18. You're allowed to drink it if you want while you're there. But if you then take that same booze and go to a country where the drinking age is 21, you're no longer allowed to drink it. You buying it in a country where drinking it would be legal does not overwrite the local laws where you currently are.