You know how some people like to say that
physical media is dead and streaming is the future? Well, Apple is
doing a pretty good job right now of proving that theory well and truly
wrong.
Reports have started to emerge of Apple completely deleting films
from iTunes accounts even when they’ve been bought, not merely rented.
And when people complain about this, they’re receiving an astonishing
message from Apple telling them that iTunes is just a “store front,” and
so Apple isn’t to blame if a film studio decides it no longer wants to
make its titles available on iTunes.
Even worse, it seems that if bought film titles are removed from your
account you may not even be entitled to get a refund for them. When an
iTunes user in Canada complained to Apple that their initial offer of a
free $5.99 rental hardly seemed suitable recompense for him having three
bought films summarily removed from his account, Apple replied that
“our ability to offer refunds diminishes over time. Hence your purchases
doesn’t meet the conditions for a refund.”
The Canadian user was offered a further two free rentals as
compensation. But, of course, as well as being far less in monetary
terms than the films user had bought, having short-term rental rights to
a film is very different indeed from owning a film.
While I’m hearing from others who fortunately did get a refund for
their deleted films, the bottom line in all this is that Apple appears
to be openly saying that if you buy a film on iTunes, you don’t really
own it at all. It may only stick around in your iTunes account for as
long as the studio who really owns it decides it wants it to stick
around in your iTunes account.
The Canadian user suffering this issue was pointed to this page of Apple legalese in the response where he was told that he wasn’t entitled to compensation for his lost purchases.
I’m also starting to receive reports today of the recent return of
another major issue with iTunes movies: the downgrading of 4K HDR films
to HD. This started happening in 2017, just after the Apple TV 4K
launched, as reported here.
At that point Apple suggested that there was some sort of labeling
issue (where films said they were HD on their header page, but played as
4K) that they managed to (largely) fix. And it seems that the return of
this issue may still be responsible for some of the “lost” 4K movies
Apple TV 4K users are seeing now.
This doesn’t seem to explain all of the 4K to HD switches, though. It seems that some are down to Apple’s
original policy of offering free HD to 4K upgrades of films no longer
applying to titles bought in HD outside of iTunes. Say, via the
iTunes-compatible Movies Anywhere platform. Though I am recently hearing
from people saying that films bought on other iTunes-compatible
platforms in 4K are also now only appearing in HD on iTunes.
In fact, I have even been contacted just today by an iTunes user who
tells me that dozens of films he owns in iTunes — many of which were
actually bought in iTunes — have stepped back on his Apple TV 4K to HD,
having previously being available in 4K. This includes titles that are
still available in 4K on VUDU.
It’s worth noting that the specific incident of films being
completely deleted I refer to in this article happened in Canada; it’s
possible that iTunes users in the U.S. and elsewhere haven’t experienced
the same issue (yet…) due to differences in film rights between
different territories.
But actually these sorts of regional rights differences merely
underline the fundamental point Apple seems to be doing its best to
confirm right now: That the only way you can be sure you own anything is
if you’re physically holding it in your hand.
I’ve asked Apple for comment on these iTunes issues, and will provide
an update if they come back with anything worth sharing. In the
meantime, though, if you’ve experienced either films you bought
disappearing entirely from iTunes, or films that once appeared in 4K now
only appearing in HD, please let me know (with details, if possible, of
whether you bought the title from within iTunes or via another
compatible platform) via the Twitter account shown at the bottom of this
article.
You don’t own anything that has DRM – not movies, not ebooks, nothing.
Okay, but what if not all mutations (a la X-Men) are actually helpful? The powers supposedly come from an evolutionary mutation, after all, and some of those hit dead ends – not everyone ends up ‘the fittest.’
And what if this is actually the explanation for Peter Parker’s extraordinarily bad luck? He actually is a mutant, but he has a terrible power that only causes him pain and grief, and the only reason he’s still alive is because he got those spider powers. And no one’s figured it out because they’re distracted by the spider powers and don’t notice that the luck is literally unnaturally bad.
I was talking to my sister about this, and she put forth the suggestion of Peter getting a mutant power suppressant collar put on him and I just… that would be amazing? Like, no one knows where Peter’s powers came from for the most part, we’re got all these mutants running around, it wouldn’t be a stretch for some anti-mutant jerk to just assume that he’s a mutant, catch Peter, and toss him in with all the other mutants they’ve captured for whatever purpose.
Cue Peter announcing to the rest of the captives “Don’t worry, guys, I’m not actually a mutant – my powers still work just fine!” and breaking everyone out. Except, as they get farther and farther into the escape, Peter starts getting more and more concerned because. Nothing is going wrong? At all? This has been shockingly easy? Everything’s going according to plan? What? By the time they’re out the door, Peter’s started actively trying to distance himself from the rest of the group and be annoying and unlikeable, because this is too long without something going wrong, someone’s going to die if this keeps up.
But no one dies. They get back to the X-mansion with minor fuss, Professor X runs some tests because Peter’s freaking out and it turns out, oh, you actually were a mutant, your power is just the worst power ever.
Peter: “Soooo… what I’m getting out of this is, if I keep wearing this collar, I won’t have such constant crappy luck?”
Professor X: “Well ideally it would be best if you learned more about your power now that you’re aware of it and-”
Peter: “Sorry, just remembered that you wouldn’t let me join your super-team so I don’t have to listen to you byeeeeeee~!!!”
And he makes it home in time for supper and life just gets better. Though Peter keeps getting surprised by stuff. Ex:
Peter: Wow, I haven’t stepped in gum in, like, a week. Weird.
MJ: That’s… actually pretty normal for most people?
Peter: What, seriously? Wild.
(snorts) A+ additional content, can’t stop picturing Peter somehow acquiring more of those suppressant collars, so he can learn how they work and build either build himself a new one if the first one he gets breaks or stream-line the design to make it more comfortable and less obvious to wear, because he is high-key Not Going Back To That.
It would also be interesting to see peoples’ reactions to that sort of thing, especially if this is in one of those universes where normal people know at least vaguely about the suppressant collars, not so much from a superheroing standpoint (he can always wear the thing under his costume and just say “yeah, trying a new look”) but from people in school.
‘cause I can see that covering a wide spectrum of reactions, from the people who have no idea what it is and think it’s just some new ‘look’ to the people who do know and approve (because that’s the ‘responsible’ thing for a mutant to do) to the people who think it is high-key disgusting that he’s wearing that thing for various reasons (either under the impression that he’s being played by the system or forced to wear it (I’m not saying MJ is ready to cut someone when she first sees it, but hoo boy, I’m not saying she isn’t, either)). If even a small fraction of the school knows about those collars, wearing it in public means he’s basically come out as being a mutant, and that news will travel fast, it’s high school.
The thing is, though? It’s also happening in a situation where Peter’s supernatually bad luck isn’t in play, and it’d be really interesting to see this play out in a situation where the worst-case-scenario isn’t automatically the most likely.
My mum talked to me once about Lindy Chamberlain, how after a dingo killed her child was put on trial for the murder of her daughter Azaria.
When she spoke calmly and with eloquence the press used this as evidence that she was emotionless and dangerous and clearly guilty. When she wept over the loss and couldn’t continue, she was accused of being emotionally manipulative, trying to use her fragile femininity as a weapon and thus she was clearly guilty.
I’m reminded of that a lot. When a woman speaks she often cannot win. I’m reminded of it when people talk about how Dr Ford has clearly not been raped because she was too calm and polite and not emotional enough.
I know that if she wept then eyes would roll and talk about how she was just another actress the democrats had found.
A woman is either too emotional or not emotional enough, there is no vision that women are “strong” when they are stoic and “passionate” when they get upset.
bongdanceking 