Another reason to sail the high seas

Zach@sh.itjust.works to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com – 1022 points –

$25 to rent the movie, one watch within max 24 hours after you start watching it... Or $5 more to own it. Scammers.

279

No you are mistaken with "Or $5 mire to own it". You own a license to watch for the amount of time the platforms decides to keep it up.

Then, when they remove it, they offer you a measly $5 gift card only redeemable on their platform.

On that last post where someone got a refund they gave a full refund as a gift card and an additional 5 euro gift card.

(Not saying it's an okay think to do, just in case you're referencing it.)

A gift card isn't a refund

It also doesn't change the false implication they would "own" the digital copy

It's a refund in the sense that you can exchange it for an item of equal value. A real refund would be more appropriate, I agree.

Equal value to the store != equal value to actual people.

The store has a profit margin, so the store values the item significantly less than the sticker price.

The store has a profit margin, so the store values the item significantly less than the sticker price.

I totally get that, but it is what you paid for it. As long as it is greater than your original payment adjusted for inflation it's fair enough. It sucks, I think there should be some sort of penalty for not getting proper licensing to let people use it forever (until your company shuts down).

No, it's what you paid for one specific digital item that was valuable enough to you to be worth paying for. That doesn't mean that anything else they have to offer would have enough value to cover the value of the item you've been deprived of.

Usually if you complain you can get a real refund. The other post was Amazon and they usually bend over backwards to make customers happy. Still pretty shitty that you have to jump through some hoops, though.

And people will go 'you didn't buy it!' like it doesn't say "Buy" right fuckin' there.

True, but it just says "buy 4k" which for all we know could mean "buy a temporary license to watch the 4k movie".

Spending $30 to own a brand new movie that just came out is not something I have a problem with.

However, not being able to download a copy of the movie you purchased is where I take issue.

$30 to own the movie is valid, but for $5 less, you're only allowed 1 watch within 24 hours of starting. Something like that shouldn't be basically the same price as the movie. With pricing like this, they basically force you to spend the extra $5. There isn't even a point to rent the movie and they know that.

Hmmm... The region-free blu-ray is will be cheaper than this. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Barbie-Blu-ray-Region-Margot-Robbie/dp/B0BGY6PRK5

When you said “cheaper” I was not expecting like NEARLY HALF THE PRICE

Yeah. I'm back to buying discs for the movies I want to support. Then I can always hang on to a copy no matter where it might live on streaming apps.

I absolutely agree! Renting a movie should cost nowhere near as much as purchasing the movie.

If you don’t get a physical piece of media that can be viewed offline indefinitely, you don’t own anything, you’re just renting. Services revoking even bought and paid for content is not unheard of, digital purchasing gives every streaming company the ability to do that.

If you don’t get a physical piece of media

It doesn't have to be physical

/pendantic

Would be rad if a service actually let you download a movie you purchased as an mkv file or something. Can't see it happening though

They are legally entitled to do so, sure.

Doesn't make up for the false implication that you are "purchasing" the movie in any commonly understood meaning of the word. And if there was any alternative where you own a full res digital format, maybe the outrage could be said to be misplaced, but there isnt, and it's not.

1 more...

After the first few times I had apple remove a book from my library, and the only explanation they ever gave me was "sometimes books change, and when books change they are a new book," I just went back to DRM free. If I have to jump through hoops, and still can't keep the content I legally purchased, why would I legally purchase the content?

When Amazon removed 1984 from Kindle, I thought that's it I'm done. That is too ironic, DRM free for me. Nobody's going to remove my books

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048

I believe it was Sea of Sorrows for me. The first time I contacted them asking what was up, since I wanted to read the book I had purchased earlier that year. They "gave" it to me as a "one time exception."

I never purchased a digital book again. Though I did still contact them again later that year, asking why it was gone yet again.

They tried to give me a "this may be an updated version" and I was like "no, this is a fucking novel based on a video game, they aren't releasing new versions every few months like textbooks."

Ironic but "Fahrenheit 451" being destroyed from Kindle would have been even more perfectly on the nose.

True. But 1984 is still pretty strong, memory holes, double think, denying reality. Fascist organizations dictating what people can know, say, think, remember.

That's very much on the nose. But regardless, huge massive red flag, you don't own something that you have in your library unless it's physical and can't be removed at a whim.

Wow I have this book on kindle ..I'll check if its still there

Do you have a good place to buy DRM free books?

I can't recommend myanonamouse because although Dorm-free books are available, they are not for sale.

Honestly, I havent bought a digital book since. You can read between the lines there.

I don't actually believe there will be a place to purchase DRM free books. Most of the ones I am seeing from a cursory search are for copyright free books.

You can buy DRM free books @ your local book store.

Man, I spent 15 bucks to watch it at the movie theatre. Why is the rent option more expensive than that? Even with the popcorn and drink I stayed below that.

My only argument I can come up with is that other people have friends, so $25 will be less than going to the cinema because they don't have to pay that price for each person watching. It's still ridiculously expensive though.

This is the logic publishers apply to libraries when they charge them more for books than general retail price.

They do ? I assumed they get better deals as they buy shit in bulk.

Mainly relates to eBooks now;

https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown-of-how-much-libraries-pay-for-ebooks-from-publishers

Edit; found a good summary.

Libraries pay more for books than a customer would at retail.

There are different payment models libraries use. And not all options may be available to all authors.

The one-copy method pays for the book up front, while the cost-per-checkout method pays a small amount each time (and can be more profitable in the long run).

With the one-copy method, libraries often pay two or three times the retail cost of a print book—and sometimes even more than triple the retail price of an ebook.

With the pay-per-use model, a book makes an amount less than the retail cost—but each time it’s “checked out,” the author gets royalties. If a lot of people read your book, you win!

Source; https://danieljtortora.com/blog/are-libraries-good-for-authors#:~:text=With%20the%20one%2Dcopy%20method,%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20author%20gets%20royalties.

Don't most friend groups pay for their own ticket?

Who out there paying for a ticket for all their friends? And are they really friends at that point?

Family sounds more likely in this case. Two adults and three kids could be like 50 euros for tickets unless the kids are small enough to sit in your lap.

I'm trying to imagine a Barbie watch party and I'm having trouble.

It's less than 2 movie tickets and people usually don't go to the theater alone.

Oh God just wait until they realize they can use cameras/IP geodata from your phone to determine how many people are in your house while you stream something so they start charging per person.

Wouldn't work because if you live in an apartment, then your neighbors are going to skew the numbers. There's no way for them to know if the guy who lives on the floor above you is in your apartment or theirs.

Cameras would work, as would AI to know which device identifiers tend to be close to one another. Besides, they wouldn't need or want perfect accuracy. I'm picturing basically something like the British does with TV licenses where they more or less assume you're guilty and then badger you into proving you're not. You have some friends over for the game, then you get a bill in the mail that says something like "This address has been linked to a broadcast without express, written consent from the NFL. Please pay $5 or we shut your service off. If you believe this letter is in error feel free to hire an attorney, take a day or two off of work and drive hundreds hundreds of miles to the dispute resolution center you agreed to use for such purposes when you accepted our EULA. We pay them, but who knows? Maybe they'll rule in your favor!"

You are exactly right. This whole thread is full of people complaining about the price, but it's perfectly justifiable for this one reason. If you have a significant other then it's actually cheaper to rent than it is to go to the theater. And big screen TVs are commonplace, so the experience is about the same (arguably better since you can pause if you have to go pee, can rewind if you missed something, can be as obnoxious as you want, don't have to commute there, and don't have to deal with sticky floors and overpriced popcorn).

I'm not saying the price is reasonable (it's too high in my opinion) but people need to stop pretending like it makes no sense from a business perspective. It's a no-brainer to the average non-pirating consumer: they are getting something better, for cheaper.

I love all the good and the bad of the movie theater experience, except the price. But having a young child now, it's just not worth going most of the time. I am still an avid film viewer so it's nice that I have an option to rent at home with only a slight delay behind the theatrical run. If I'm feeling really patient, I can usually wait a little longer and stream it for free. I recently did that with the TMNT movie.

Instead of giving your money to Amazon to rent this mediocre looking movie that I know nothing about (so this is not a promotion), why not watch it elsewhere (cough cough) and use the same 25 dollars of your hard earned money to support the people who actually worked on the movie and buy a shirt here instead?

https://www.sagaftra.org/official-sag-aftra-strike-swag-available

"Merchandising! Merchandising!" -Yogurt

Hey, it goes to help everyone get paid during the strike, so it's for a good cause.

Are there any ways to support workers on a per-production scope?

"Owned" till we remove it from your library

"owned" til someone upstream squeezes us harder / we do stupid shit that loses us customers and we go out of business

That's $25 for a revocable license to watch it once and $5 more for a revocable license to watch it as many times as you want until the service folds or they decide to memory-hole it in order to get out of paying residuals to the cast and crew. The only way to own something is to steal it.

Piracy is not theft.

It's weird how people were told it's theft and they simply repeated it forever despite knowing exactly what theft is and knowing piracy is literally not the same thing.

Now apply this same reasoning to other life concepts we've been told, and welcome to enlightenment.

(Or black pilling, YMMV)

You need to get yawnpilled. Check it out: some of the things people commonly accept as true actually are true. Up your grind and get on my level

It's not the same thing but that doesn't mean it's not theft, nonetheless.

It's not the same thing but that doesn't mean it's not theft, nonetheless.

^ Would you really consider that comment stolen, rather than digitally copied?

@dpkonofa@lemmy.world

Way to be dishonest. Comments do not make for people’s livelihoods. Piracy is theft of income from the creators. People here are dishonest and try to do all these mental gymnastics to justify their specific version of piracy. The only form of piracy that can be argued to be somewhat amoral is pirating media that is not available legally. Otherwise, no matter how you look at it, you are stealing an income or livelihood from whoever created it.

Please understand that copying intellectual property and theft are, legally speaking, two different things. If I build a machine that just makes endless copies of your intellectual property, just because I can, it doesn't affect your income whatsoever. You don't get more poor for each copy that's made.

I agree with you about pirating media that's not legally available. However, a lot of great content will become unavailable at some point in the future. Making a copy for the archives while it's possible is a good idea for any media you care about, since there's no guarantee that anyone else cares.

If I build a machine that just makes endless copies of your intellectual property, just because I can, it doesn't affect your income whatsoever.

More dishonesty. This isn't what's happening. People are ingesting media that they have no right to. Stop trying to cover it up with flowery language. If I make some form of content and am offering it for sale then the only way to ingest it legally, and morally, is to pay for it. The copying of the media isn't the issue. That's only an excuse that people like you give to try and justify their specific brand of theft. The only reason piracy is defined differently than theft is because someone is deprived of a good in theft whereas, in piracy, there is no physical good to deprive someone of so the theft is of income. If you're ingesting the content and you're not paying for it, then you're stealing income from the creator of that content. There's no way to argue that this isn't the case.

You can even try to argue that you only pirate things by huge studios that don't need the money or that the media that you're pirating was created as a work for hire so the people who made it already got paid but that's all irrelevant to the point because, even in those cases, you're reducing the future work that those people will receive. We live in a capitalist system where dollars earned dictate the work that people get hired for. No matter what way you slice it, you're stealing from the content creators - whether it's the income that they deserve for the work you're ingesting or the future work that they would have received.

Just admit you're stealing and get over yourself.

Buying the disk is still owning it (which is another $5 less on amazon BTW) though it is not out yet.

What's the DRM like on a disc copy? I'll admit that I'm not caught up, it's been a long time since I bought physical media. Is it revocable?

Gray area at best.

It's not even grey - in the US it is illegal under the DMCA.

I'm not up to date on ripping tools, though.

US allows you to have a personal backup copy.

The DMCA supersedes that - it's still a crime to bypass copy protection mechanisms, and there are very few exceptions to that rule.

I know that in the EU, if you buy a video game and it runs poorly or not at all because of the DRM put in place by the publisher, you are allowed to use a crack. Dunno if it's the same for a movie tho.

With a physical item, first sale doctrine clearly applies, so you can own the movie, and resell it to somebody else, or lend it to your friends, or give it to a library. None of which is possible with a digital DRMed "ownership "

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

"own it" until we delete it from your account because reasons, but hey, we'll give you a coupon!

I kind of get the feeling that CEOs and corporations see the writing on the wall in terms of the world, economy, and climate change. We're headed for some really extreme times in history and I think these guys have the mindset to just go full balls and try to scam as much wealth out of humanity as possible before the shit hits the fan. The greed I see from companies these days is very blatant and in your face, they don't try to hide it anymore, it's all very "fuck you, pay me" and it's virtually every company you can find these days, they're all doing everything they can to fuck everyone out of one more penny.

It's a full chain of events that one thing lead to another. People invest money into companies in order to make more money, but they don't make more money just because the company had profit - it that was the case nobody would have sold it to them. For the investors to profit from owning part of a company, it needs to increase the amount of money it makes compared to when the investor jumped in. With the companies being negotiated at all times, it needs to increase its revenue at all times as well. So companies' objectives are no longer to make money, but to increase the amount of money they make. There's no stopping point, no "we're at a real good spot here". If some company managed to amass all the money in the world, it would be screwed because that would mean it can't make more money. Some companies may make some nice products and become profitable and have happy users, but even if a company makes enough money to give all of its employees a very comfortable life, it can't, because it needs to continue increasing its profits.

The greed is so apparent these days because too many companies have reached a point where there's no more room for them to grow, but they still need to.

And it'll only get worse.

There was a scene in the show Parks and Recreation that happens in some near future and that scene had an ad saying "Proud to be one of America's eight companies". That absolutely is the future we're walking towards.

Movies have been very expensive in the short term period after theatrical release, that's why blockbuster would charge $60 if you lost the tape, it's how much they sold to rental stores for before wide release. This higher price is absurd to me but to the studios it's a premium for all the hype they built up, the price will come down after a few months. They are still working out the new models and testing the waters to see what floats.

The physical Blu-Ray is $25* -- then at least you own it, versus the $30 price here to "buy" but actually lease.

Absolutely ridiculous pricing across the board though.

Edit: $25 for 1080p Blu-Ray, $40 for 4k.

The worst part is that you might be better off with a pirated copy due to DRM on Blu-ray.

I mean, you can rip the Blu-Ray, but yeah, otherwise agreed.

But don't Blu-Ray players have to be "updated" via the internet to get the latest decryption keys every now and then?

Technically yes, though in practice it depends on the disc. And also MakeMKV rips them reliably.

Physical 4K bluray retails at 39.99. The physical bluray comes with a digital code as well. Currently on sale at Amazon for 29.99.

Correction, $5 more for a lifetime (or until the company decides to remove it) rental.

"Your receipt is inside this long block chain, beside the astro-doc monkey art."

$25 to rent and an extra $5 for the illusion you own it!

"own" it

Pipe dream, but I really wish we would make it illegal to use the terms "Buy" or "Own" for digital goods that can at some point not exist outside of your control.

I give you a dollar and get a DRM-free video file? That is buying.

I give you a dollar and can watch a video file an unlimited number of times in your app? That is not buying, and it should be fraud to claim that it is.

And buying the movie probably won't give you a file, but instead just the right to stream it from their servers. At some point they'll pull the plug on that and you'll loose access.

I am just baffled by how many people pay idiotic prices with "life just got more expensive, what are you gonna do"

If people happily keep buying all the overpriced shit it's just gonna get worse..

I wish wages inflated as much as the price of everything...

Yeah it's pretty great how the "cost" of things go up but the folks involved in the actual production of said goods are not getting paid more, makes one wonder....

Infinite growth is not possible in the long run and as soon as customers, resources, physical production space, or anything that is currently being exploited really, cannot keep up anymore, our current economy will fold. I dunno what comes after, probably some big war that the modern day slavers can blame it on.

And you "own" it only as long as they deem it. https://nofilmschool.com/warner-bros-deleting-purchased-digital-content

This seems like reverse piracy

"We own everything", basically. All they want is for them to control how everyone else does things.

Also, a hearty "fuck you" to all those folks out there (I've run into them before) who claim that publishers should get to have absolute control over how consumers use stuff they put out.

Read the TOS for all streaming/digital content services

they ALL reserve the right to withdraw or remove content at ANY time and there's nothing you can do about it, if they decide to pull the plug or move content to another service they will just do it and you've most likely agreed to it in their very long winded and convoluted TOS that barely anyone bothers to read fully

this is part of Apple's TOS

Apples content TOS

Renting a DvD / Blueray was like 7$, going to the movies is 10-15$, why TF is this platform so expensive??

It's pre release. You can often get streaming copies prior to the street date, but it's generally quite expensive.

Renting a DVD or video game was like $3 at its peak here. There was a video store that had older movies that they would let you rent 5 movies for 5 nights for 5 dollars.

It’s not the platform. The movie is that much on them all. In a few months it will drop to $6 - 7 for rental.

It's for people who don't want to wait a few more months to pay $5.99 instead.

1 more...

This is the first movie I ever pirated, specifically because of this bullshit pricing. Now I have a VPN and a 500 GB server, which I’m sure will need to be upgraded at some point lol

a 500 GB server,

I remember those days...about 20 years ago haha I finally dismantled my 189 TB server about 3 months ago because I'm moving 1,300 miles away. I have 50 TB in the cloud now. Space goes quick, especially these days with 1080p with HDR and 4K with Dolby Atmos and Vision. I think my biggest single file is about 125 GB. Many of them are 50-80 GB a piece.

edit: fixed

I find the best way if you're on a budget is to have a small collection of 4k movies, with an even smaller rotation of new 4k movies - then have everything else at 1080p x265. Still want at least 8TB ideally, so down the NAS rabbit hole we go..

If you're low on storage IDK if 4K is even worth it, maybe low-end (compressed audio, HDR10) 4K. Once you go 4K all the way, it gobbles up space quickly. I had like 250 4K movies and it was about 10-15 TB (rough estimation, this was months ago)

I think it depends on your setup - if you've got a good 4k HDR TV then by all means you could just watch then delete and it would be worth it. But yeah good point, may as well do 1080 otherwise, if you want a collection. I've only got 90 movies at 1080p and struggle to justify keeping more than that.

How much do you pay for 50tb cloud hosting haha

It's object storage, so actually not as much as you'd think. I think it was like $500 for a year, the price increases 4 fold after that if you don't upgrade to a higher tier

Just a heads-up: no matter how safe you feel with your VPN, you shouldn't share this explicitly on a public forum. You're never as safe as you think you are.

Literally no one cares about a single person doing it for personal usage. It's not worth the effort for law enforcement. It's like busting a teenager for a gram of weed when the guy down the road is selling pounds a day.

Not unless they already have reason to look at you.

I'm not saying youre in danger, I'm just saying it's better to not publicize it

Unless you have a reason to hide, no one really cares. If OP is in the US it would take at least two subpoenas (one for reddit Lemmy to get OP's IP address, and one to OP's ISP to match the IP to a physical address) to figure out who OP is. If OP isn't in the US then it gets a lot more difficult.

We're on Lemmy, not reddit. Your instance admin likely doesn't have a legal team, if nothing else you'll be putting them at risk.

IDK why people are so flippant about this. The US intelligence agencies absolutely have the means and resources to surveil you if you give them the slightest reason to. Even if they DGAF about your pirating, doing so could flag you for further monitoring and they can do so even if you have a VPN in place.

VPN's aren't armor, they're more like camouflage. But if you're running through the thicket yodeling about the crimes you're committing, that camouflage isn't doing you much good.

Not even since

  1. It's not a crime, it's a civil offense, so the only people looking for you are, in theory, copyright holders, not cops.
  2. Teenagers actually do get busted for small amounts of weed sometimes, no one is getting busted for piracy since 10+ years outside of a small handful of copyright trolls (so if you torrent the porn videos associated with their companies without a vpn).

If I directly downloaded it, and am using lemmy on a different device, is there still a way for them to link my comment to my online behavior?

Nobody is coming after you, don't worry about it. If they were really determined? Maybe, possibly, depending on many factors but you're a very small fish in a very big pond.

Yep, I've been screaming it from the rooftops for years and have gotten a few "stop downloading pirated content" letters from ISPs, and I'm still here.

Your ISP has bigger things to worry about than trace a user through a VPN service and stalk their fediverse comments for piracy confessions. :)

Consumer level piracy is like the lowest tier of illegal (assuming US). VPN actually does confer perfect security in this specific circumstance, zero chance of consequences.

2 more...

I think I'll download the video file for free.

This is ridiculous, but at least Barbie is getting a physical release. I'm actually very willing to pay for media... if I can access it offline and am not dependent on the good will of some large corporation.

I pirated Barbie and was pretty excited to see it but damn I was disappointed, this movie was seriously overhyped it's really nothing to write home about.

I don't know why, but from the hype I expected it to be a bit more mature, but it had the plot depth of a kids movie... Well it was a kids movie that's why it just felt flat to me.

Maybe you missed a lot of the subtext? Most films are about more than the plotline but this one especially.

Agreed. The pacing was just strange. I have a feeling that it will eventually be one of those movies that people always see on TV late at night.

Haha do people still watch TV channels st night?

76 million Americans still have cable TV so I guess so

Honestly if it was a freaking masterpiece there is no way in hell that I'd watch a Barbie movie..

4 more...

I remember renting VHS and later dvd's.

It usually cost like 4 bucks

There used to be a video store near me that had a 444 deal. You could rent four movies for four days for four dollars.

in the USA for the longest time there was a chain of video stores by me called family video that you could rent seven movies for 7 days for 50 cent each

Both of these deals strictly applied to older titles without a "new release" sticker, meaning they are not applicable in this context.

It's usually $4 to rent a movie that's not in theaters. Barbie hasn't ended it's theater run.

Does buy 4K means own digitaly? If yes, it's even worse than I thought..

Its only sent to you in 4K if they determine you have the bandwidth available for it. They can send it to you at whatever resolution they want to.

It's like a heaven they couldn't have even imagined in the era of VHS. You buy it from them and can use it only as they see fit. I'd rather buy bluray than this slaverism. But of course I prefer nice hevc 4k rip on my NAS browsed through Kodi with Netflix like skin. I scrape files as I download them and after more than 10 years it's really nice offline collection. 😇

How long is your mobile phone, is it foldable?

Never left for media stuff, but for games yeah I will.

Could be a scrolling screenshot. My phone can scroll and stitch multiple screens into one looooong screenshot. It's pretty handy.

Just literally tried an example, i see now the purpose of the arrows up and down like arrow keys in the keyboard beside the small thumbnail when you screenshot, I never knew this exists and yes i can go further lol

OnePlus?

Samsung, but I'm sure other manufacturers have it too.

Yeah Asus' Zen UI does it as well, but they have text labels under all of the buttons that appear after taking a screenshot.

That's absolutely the Samsung Fold. I'm using one and it fits my front screen perfectly.

well google play movies was attractive when it was cheap (wjth regional pricing, i could spend as low as 25 cents to "rent" a movie)

It's always like this on release, give it a few weeks and Amazon will have that 4k version to rent for a fiver. Closer to a cinema ticket and much more palatable.

Available for rental? Nice, this means some HD goods must have spilled on the high seas 😁. Prepare for departure crew - anchor and sails up! 🚢🏴‍☠️

Nice, this means some HD goods must have spilled on the high seas

I downloaded a 4K copy from Usenet on 9/11

Good movie though. I enjoyed it quite a bit since feminism doesn't scare me. Grow up people.

With that said, fuck those prices, and fuck fake ownership.

One of the highest grossing movies of all time. They already made back their money and then some at the box office.

does sailing the high seas only mean dling or does it include streaming?

You download it either way

what do you mean? you can't rewatch something unless you have the internet and the item is still available.

E: why am I getting downvoted. This is a legitimate question.

If you are watching any content from the web, it doesn't matter if you download it or "stream" it. The same data gets sent to your computer either way.

My response to your first comment implied that both downloading and streaming pirated content count as sailing the high seas since both methods mean downloading pirated content.

Some people may not see "streaming" torrents as the correct way to pirate things because you aren't seeding though.

Technically. Streaming something is still downloading it. It's just a compressed and temporary version instead of saving it to a specific file to

That's insane, I saw it at Montreal in the cinema for $14 CAD.

That's two hours of labor at minimum wage in a lot of States. I feel like I'd maybe pay $5 to watch it at home.

These happen all the time with digital "releases", they charge obscene amount for rental but the price comes down to regular amount in a few weeks. High prices for the most impatient.

What in the long phone?

Seriously though, is that an xperia?

My guess is either a Samsung Flip or Samsung Fold.

I have a Fold 3 and my screen is just a lil bit longer. I kinda have small hands and I love how narrow the front screen is. It makes it really easy to use one-handed.

I can understand not being interested in the movie or the price point or digital "ownership", but why does it make them scammers to offer the purchase at a price that heavily amortizes down the cost per viewing?

The rental price is on par with two theater tickets and they're not playing games with pretending like the purchase price should be double because you plan to watch it at least twice.

Well shouldn't rental be much less than the price of buying and much less than the price of cinema tickets? That's how it used to work.

Personally I prefer theaters so I think that price is high, yes. But rentals also used to be less convenient because the wait was longer and the TVs were lower quality.

The reduced wait time I think is the only real leg to stand on. It arguably doesn't make sense to undermine theatre ticket sales by making it cheaper at home, although I'd argue that it should be that the theatre option is the premium option that should cost more while home streaming is the cheap option if you don't want or need the theatre experience which should make it a complimentary income source to ticket sales not a threat to it but I guess they reckon they'll make them both cost the same until the cinema run is over so they never make less than a full theatre ticket price until then.

I hate how things being convenient means they have to cost more. "Convenience fees" are such a crock. If it cost them more to offer the convenience over their usual service, but they don't run video stores any more and this has arguably less overhead than the renting physical media business did so it should be cheaper for everyone and yet instead they contrive additional expense on top because they made it convenient.

The rental price will eventually be much lower, but they've been doing this lately where they let people watch movies that are still in theaters for a significantly higher price.

Why am I seeing this capitalist apologia on a pirating forum?

It makes them 'scammers' because:

  • they are calling it a purchase, but its not a purchase. It's a lease.
  • the rental price is arbitrary anyway. It costs them the same to stream the media, if it's $25 or $0.25. Hell, it costs them the same if they stream it as a purchase as it does to stream it as a rental.
  • you don't have any legal option to control your own digital full res copy of any media that you pay for, but they take your money anyway so you can pretend that you do.

I consider that to be a scam.

I don't think you know what a scam is. The terms of the purchase are spelled out clearly and nobody is being deceived.

I'm also happy I'll never watch this film

It actually was pretty entertaining. About as good as any film directed towards teens and women.

Couldn't finish the movie, it was such trash.... I'm happy I didn't pay to watch it at least.

Me and my girlfriend laughed maybe 3 times and then the yawning started... This movie is made for small kids right? Otherwise I don't understand why it's popular.

Were you at the movies with the men that were with your girlfriend?

You forgotvto mention the serious misandry of that movie. Another double standard. Women do it, it's all good fum. Men do it - canceled.

oh boohoo. the director quite literally wanted to make a movie showing the idiocy of both misogyny AND misandry. are you sad because “oH nOooO my pRecIouS PAtriArcHY iS BeINg CaLled SEXIST!!??” or are you sad because maybe the movie had a strong female lead?

either you havent watched this movie, in which case, why the fuck are you making assumptions about it? or, you are just so genuinely idiotic, arrogant and stubborn that you cant realise the simple fact that, while the barbie movie is definitely more feminist than it is pro-man, its not misandrist.

Did you read the tagline on this very thread? That's enough for me to make my conclusions, but add the statements made by the creators, and various reviews by people who've seen it, and I can comfortably live with my conclusion.

Oh, and your comment dripping with derision and insults to someone you don't know at all reveals your true nature. Go spend some quality time with yourself, if you can stand it.

hey no youre right, im sorry, ive been sick these past few days and its been messing with my mood. i was quite mean and i want to apologise for that. its easy to forget that others on the internet are real people and that people are nuanced. again, sorry for my actions, and we can agree to disagree

Wow. This is what makes Lemmy different from Reddit. On reddit, I'd be baited to rage-post repeatedly.

Anyway, apology gladly accepted, and I'm glad you aren't the person I feared you to be. I'm willing to keep my mind open on the Barbie movie, though everything I know so far points to anti-male themes.

That's not the take away I got from the movie. I felt that it was critical of when both do it. If they wanted it to have a misandrist message the inclusion of Ken's emotional arc was very counter productive to that.

Who the fuck streams or downloads movies in 4k? What kind of uber connection do you people have and do you sit five inches from the television analyzing pixels and crying if one looks to be out of place?

I've seen 4K and it doesn't impress me even a little bit. Boo hoo hoo get glasses I know, I have glasses, I can see, 4K is worthless and probably why all of these internet providers want to destroy net neutrality and have tiered connections. At a proper viewing distance, 1080 is more than enough.

I can stream 4K over 100mb connection quite fine and I can see a remarkable difference when viewed on a decent panel. You enjoy what you enjoy and let others enjoy what they enjoy.

4k streams with very little compression at around 50 Mbps. If you use some decent compression (like most streaming services do), you can cut that in half. That is a very reasonable bandwidth for the average American.

Nobody NEEDS 4k, but it's not like some crazy luxury or placebo. If I'm watching a 1080p stream on a big 4k TV and sitting back on the couch, I can absolutely tell the difference. 1080p is tolerable, but I would definitely choose 4k if it's available.

It's not even about 1080p vs 4k. It's about sdr vs hdr.

I mean.....that is also a factor, yes, but resolution also matters.

Some people still think HDR is only available in 4k (because that's how most movies are distributed). But you can absolutely fit an H.265 HDR 10-bit 1080p (or 4k) movie on a data DVD±R, or H.266 HDR 720p on a CD-R. It's usually not worth the effort, though.

And you can only appreciate the resolution if the screen takes up enough of your visual field, and HDR only in a glare-free dark environment. My small LCD TV offers neither so there is no reason to download movies above 720p (even DVD over RGB looks sharp on it).

One would imagine those with 4K tvs would want to stream in 4K. Lol wtf? Is this some bizarre copypasta?

Dudes got the CRT out of the closet, and he's on a rampage!

Don't blame me that you fell for the industry trying to sell people more expensive crap every year treadmill because capitalism profits have to go up every year even if the product is essentially worthless or not any better than what you already have. Be smarter than that.

Every year? This was my first new decent television ever, and I've had it for 4. Am I not allowed to play games on a nice screen? My non-existent TV was certainly not just as good as this one, I can promise you that. This has far nicer colors than the invisible one.

Who the fuck streams or downloads movies in 4k? Why so angry. I'm sure you don't analyse every pixel of 1080p either. I rarely stream but instead download for watching later and the time difference for download makes no difference.

I have 32-inch 4k monitor and I sit about a meter away from it. 4k is quite distinct to 1080p on my monitor.

1 more...

Watching propaganda is not why I pirate. It's to have access to the media that isn't straight up propaganda.

  • Bunch of Kens in here.

Barbie was a funny movie, the only people complaining about "the propaganda" are retards who don't understand women are people.

I thought the movie was kinda funny but mostly just a mess in terms of plot structure and tone. Calling it propaganda is hilarious. How fragile do you have to be to be triggered by a movie as tame as barbie. To me it amounted to a tiktok compilation of semi-funny feminist memes, hardly the 'Blazing Saddles' of feminism.

Pretty much, the plot was dumb and the story wasn't much better but that didn't stop it from being a fun watch. Ironically Ryan Gosling, a man, was the best part of the movie.

Tame is a good word to describe the messaging.

Swing and a miss, bud.

A miss? Considering all the but-hurt, I hit the target precisely (to borrow your analogy). All post-2016 mainstream movies are propaganda.

I remember when Thomas Propaganda invented it in 2016.

This user thinks Jimmy Hoffa proves all unions forever are bad, but demands rock-solid proof that Jordan Peterson does the thing he's primarily known for doing.

Leave.

This user doesn't understand nuance, and is sure all people who hold a different opinion are nazis and -ists.

Lmao you probably don’t blink an eye at the US Military funding the Transformers movies or having veto power for Marvel scripts.

But yeah, sure, Barbie’s the propaganda.

All post-2016 mainstream movies are propaganda. Quite a few before then of course. WW II films, ect. But Homeland Security has had their fingers in the Hollywood pie for a while now.

Amazing. A Quiet Place was propaganda, but Iron Man was a piece of high art because

-checks notes-

it was made before 2016.

Holy fuck my dude I rewatched that movie earlier this year and it's kinda garbage. The white saviour is real in that movie.

Ohh no, not my propaganda movie Tenet, they advocate running and driving backward.

Movies have been used as propaganda since they were invented. Maybe you've heard of a little film that came out in the 1930s call Tell Your Childres also known as Reefer Madness.