Sign In

Digital OT owners switched to Disney+ versions without consent?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

.

 
 

Moderator Edit: Darth Silkworms has been in contact to let us know his attorney has asked him to cease discussing the issue publicly, and therefore he has edited his posts to a ‘.’

Author
Time

Why do you think the studios love digital so much? They could remove your access to the movie entirely without consequences if they wanted. Without a physical disc or non-DRM’d downlaod, you have no rights.

TV’s Frink said:

I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.

Author
Time

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong is indeed correct - and yet the streaming service, an an actual ‘service’… could and should have notified you of the changes it was making.

It may be worth checking the small print in the contract - though I imagine the streaming service would have covered this eventuality somewhere in there where we almost never read.

A pop-up on screen giving you a heads-up that content had changed would have been both welcome and courteous, and not too difficult for the streaming company to achieve.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t highlight to your stream provider that a heads-up would be welcome in the future - or let them know you prefer earlier version ‘X’ over ‘Y’ etc. That this is the version you were paying for, expecting to view and experience, and is also the version that attracted you to their service.

And that if they change it again without notification you’ll be cancelling you subscription and raising awareness amongst your friends and colleagues on social media (negative PR usually has more chance of the person on the end of the phone sitting up and taking notice, running it up the flagpole and y’know… maybe them actually making a change or improvement to their service).

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

 
Welcome | About | Help | How do I do this on the OT.com? | Announcements | General Assistance |
Site Timeline | Forum Rules | Fan Edit & Preservation Rules + FAQs | Signature Rules | MySpleen Info

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shit, it is about time the various content providers made more of an effort to let us know exactly what we are buying from them. Keep the paying consumer informed, maybe?

As oojason said… a notification that the films we have signed up to buy and watch have changed wouldn’t go amiss (whether that is physical media, digital downloads, or streamed etc) and isn’t difficult to do.
 

In the wider context of the differing versions and changes made to the films… maybe it is embarrassing for Lucasfilm to answer such questions? It is possible they don’t like that kind of publicity or light being shone on their continuing releases? Being asked just which of the five versions it is we are actually buying and receiving - why certain versions are no longer available, and information as to what changes have been made to each (which they seemingly don’t want to give out).

It is almost like they (lucasfilm and the content providers) treat the paying customer with disdain or contempt, and expect us to pay for continuing new releases they don’t even describe or provide information on - in regards to changes made to them.

To pay for versions or content that we may not actually want.

No fate but what we make - apart from force dyads!

Author
Time

For 99% of films this update is going to be rather transparent. There won’t be any content changes (such as Macklunkey), but will generally be a better transfer. In particular, this relates to 4K vs. HD. I believe that their system is downscaling on the fly based on your device and your connection speed so they only need to have one version of the program on their sever to meet everyone’s needs. I can’t wait for them to update TFA on the streaming servers because it will finally be the one with no burned in subtitles. It was the only film released that way. Idiots.

Author
Time

IIRC this is what happened last time? I could have sworn this is now standard operating procedure industry wide. When they update/upgrade the file, that change propagates across to your library, because what you own isn’t the movie, it’s the license to play it.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t a Lucasfilm thing, but a movie studios thing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Why do you think the studios love digital so much? They could remove your access to the movie entirely without consequences if they wanted. Without a physical disc or non-DRM’d downlaod, you have no rights.

best argument for physical media ever.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Digital copies are always a license to access the content. That’s it. You don’t own a digital copy. Ever.

The studios can replace the digital copy with an updated version, a censored version, or even revoke the license altogether at any time, without refunding you a dime, and they’re well within their legal rights to do all of those things.

Is it right? Nope. But that’s how it is.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Digital copies are always a license to access the content. That’s it. You don’t own a digital copy. Ever.

The studios can replace the digital copy with an updated version, a censored version, or even revoke the license altogether at any time, without refunding you a dime, and they’re well within their legal rights to do all of those things.

Is it right? Nope. But that’s how it is.

Until dual power structures are erected, anyway.

Divergent Universes
Dreams of a Randy Git-Fiend

Make Off Topic great again.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Digital copies are always a license to access the content. That’s it. You don’t own a digital copy. Ever.

The studios can replace the digital copy with an updated version, a censored version, or even revoke the license altogether at any time, without refunding you a dime, and they’re well within their legal rights to do all of those things.

Is it right? Nope. But that’s how it is.

Until dual power structures are erected, anyway.

Yes, in which case we won’t have to worry about these things because there will be no more big budget blockbusters.

TV’s Frink said:

I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.

Author
Time

That would be interesting to hear the outcome of.

But I suspect the outcome will be “this is the only version that exists and it was never different because we’re Disney”

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

DARTH SILKWORMS said:

Mocata said:

That would be interesting to hear the outcome of.

But I suspect the outcome will be “this is the only version that exists and it was never different because we’re Disney”

My main goal is just to raise awareness of this issue. I own a newspaper, have my own national TV show, etc, so I know I’m in a better position than most to raise a stink. Look at it like this: what if Prime Video, Vudu, Itunes, etc had sold Star Wars theatrical editions back in '06 when the limited edition DVDs came out, but years later they were allowed to change them to the special editions without your permission? It’s a very dangerous precedent and while most would assume Vudu’s TOS would give them great leeway here, shockingly, it actually doesn’t. I thought for sure they would have their ass covered in their TOS and couldn’t believe it only stated they had the right to remove access to your purchased content for a limited time.

99% of people won’t care, even if you raise a stink.

Author
Time

It matters less how many people care and far more about setting a precedent in court. A legal determination in his favor could prove a huge deal to film history.

Author
Time

It says right in the first paragraph that the content is subject to restrictions from the studio. Maybe they can’t permanently remove the content, but from just the snippet you shared I see nothing to prevent them from replacing the content with an “updated” version without informing you.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

Vudu doesn’t dictate what the content is, the distributor/studio does. The first sentence absolves Vudu of any liability at all.

TV’s Frink said:

I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.