What is Apple *thinking*?

So last night I got a hankering for watching the old "Hellboy" movie. I've bought music on line, so why not a movie? I go to the iTunes website, and, sure enough, I can download it for ten bucks. Before I do it, I read the fine print: I can only view it up to seven times, and only for 30 days after the download. I can only watch it on my PC, or an "approved Apple device". I can't burn it and watch it on my TV, since I don't have a TiVo - or even cable for that matter - though I do have an old DVD player.

I immediately say, "I don't think so!" and push the Cancel button. I go to Amazon. Someone there has a used copy in "Very Good to Excellent" condition. Eight bucks including postage, and the seller has a 100% feed-back rating. That's a no-brainer, people. Sure, I'll have to wait a few days, but it will be mine. I can watch it as often as I want, for as long as I want, on any device I want. And if I eventually get bored with it, well maybe someone on Amazon or eBay has a hankering for "Hellboy".

Who convinced Apple that this was a good idea? Putting so many restrictions on a download that no one in their right mind would purchase it? If I only wanted it for a short time, well there's always Netflix, though I don't watch enough movies to subscribe to their service. I'd rather purchase a download - it's faster and more ecologically correct - than a DVD, but not on those terms.

That sort of crap encourages piracy, and penalizes legitimate buyers like me. I've already quit buying music on iTunes because their format is so cumbersome, and switched to Amazon for my music. I don't think I'll be visiting iTunes again, and I wonder how many others have made the same decision.

Of course, once you figure out you can't view it anymore you also won't download anything anymore.

You know, I love my iPod and I love my MacBook but sometimes Apple pisses me off. Don't even get me started on MobileMe.

Blame the movie's rights holder and blame the politicians who brought us the DMCA. In fact, Steve Jobs has spoken out against DRM and wishes he could do away with it.

They're like the mafia and Congress keeps giving them weapons with which to beat us down.

that two companies offering the same type of service have such different rules:

iTunes (Apple): 30-day viewing window. 24-hour viewing period.

Unbox (Amazon): File is owned by buyer forever. No viewing window or viewing period.

In both cases, the cost is the same (around $10) and the quality is the same. The one difference is the download time. iTunes is quick (a few minutes) while Unbox is slow (the last one I bought took about 2 hours to transfer.)

I suspect it is actually Apple and not the MPAA fucking over the customer. If you only own it for 30 days or 1 viewing day then they can generate revenue on the same title repeatedly. You'd think if it were the MPAA that they'd hold all vendors to the same general terms.

Especially the Apple Computer vs. Apple Record case, etc. The excessive restrictions may be an attempt to protect themselves. But, thanks to open software development, you can strip the DRM off the file and burn it to a DVD if you want; just have to know how.

Amazon also sells hard copies. Apple does not.

That's about what it boils down to.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html





(Okay, it's clear that at this point I've just participated. But I hadn't until now, and I saw this post shortly after you made it, almost 90 minutes ago...)

*ahem*

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior.

I'm looking at the iTunes Terms of Sale, and it says:

You have thirty (30) days after downloading a movie to begin viewing. Once you begin viewing, you have twenty-four (24) hours to view the movie (the “Viewing Period”). You may view the movie an unlimited number of times during the Viewing Period. Movies are not viewable after the thirty (30) day period. Stopping, pausing or restarting a movie does not extend the available time for viewing.

Sounds like after you downloading the movie, you have 30 days in which to begin viewing it (i.e., if you download it today, if you don't watch it before September 19, it turns into a pumpkin, but if you watch it tomorrow, you're OK). However, I'm not sure what the 24 hours period means. :shrug:

Really. How fucked up is that? They charge you that much money and you can only watch it for one day.

I like Amazon's online viewing service, Unbox, better. It costs about the same and I own the file forever. I can watch it whenever I want. If I change computers (or lose the file)...I can re-download it.

But I do remember that the terms were extremely restrictive. That's ridiculous, considering I could buy a brand-new copy for something like $14, or a used one for $8 and - as I said - have it forever. I can understand not making it easy to make multiple copies: otherwise people would buy it and give copies to all their friends, and artists and producers are entitled to be paid for their work just like the rest of us.

My feeling is that if it's technologically possible to put that many restrictions on a download, can't they just design it so one could make just one copy? The royalties would probably be the same since I expect that $4 price difference between a new DVD and a download probably pays for the materials and distribution costs. That strikes me as being a whole lot more sane than their present system.

I think it sucks, too. Much as I love Apple products, my computers and iPod, I have serious issues with their software policy. I'm a game developer and Apple has had a downright shitty record on helping companies make or port games to the Mac. They contract with a select few developers for a small subsection of products. However, this is changing as more people see the Mac as an option (and take it from me, the Mac is a really easy platform to develop for). I hope that the iTunes use policy will open up as well. iTunes is still an Apple cash cow, so if they want to keep it, they'd better.

In the meantime, there's a fair few ways to get around the restrictions, and Apple knows it (and they surreptitiously ignore it). Go to an Apple store and ask someone to help you get music off your iPod. They'll tell you that they "can't do it," but usually also tell you to check out (off the record, of course) such programs as iPod Rip, iPod Disk, and others. I can't pretend to know what they're thinking, but it's likely something along the lines of "Jesus bitch, I hope I don't get my ass sued." Apple's had a few legal troubles with the very existence of iTunes (there's a good reason there are no Beatles tunes in the iTunes store), and it's possible that the excessive restrictions are a response to this. As the RIAA and MPAA either open up or fade it into obscurity, it's possible (nay, probable) that iTunes will becomes less restrictive.

I'm sorry. Sure OS X is a brilliant OS. Sure, Apples are easier to use. Sure, the iPod is great.

But there are too many exceptions. Apple has always been about exceptions, rather than the rule. That is why OS X is based on BSD and not Linux.

Want to really think different without limitations? Go Linux.

I know iTunes has rentals, as well as downloads. I've downloaded plenty of movies and watched them a number of times. I think I've showed Doctor Horrible to more than seven people and it still works.

Also, you can connect an iPod to a television with a cable, which is 8 bucks at Radio Shack.

If you buy a movie from Apple, you can watch as much as you like, on any device (Apple TV, iPod, iPhone, computer, etc).

I'm not saying their blameless, but I can guarantee that if the studios (movie and music labels) would stop being such regressive fucknuts, these things would get better.

I was given a card for free itunes and I didn't bother. I can't transfer the songs to my mp3 player. I can only play it in itunes. If I burn it I can't transfer that to anything else. Waste of time. Fuck Apple.

I'm not going to spend $200 on an iPod when a Zen player with the same features costs $50. And I can transfer Amazon purchases to any player I choose, not just an iPod. Apple made a poor business decision decades ago when they nixed open-source software: sure, they make a good product, but they've lost customers like me who can find similar stuff a lot more cheaply.

Sounds like they've still got the same idiots making their policies.

playable on any mp3 device.

It's been awhile since I bought mp3s from iTunes, but last I checked, the songs did play on my iPod.

The long way around Apple's DRM is to rip the CDs. If you import the songs from the CD, they'll play on anything.

Burn the songs from iTunes onto an audio CD, and re-import them from that CD. They will import as MPEGs (if your settings are correct), then you have nothing to worry about.

The Bank Job is 3.99$ to rent. Groundhog Day is 2.99 to rent and 9.99 to buy.