$25 to rent the movie, one watch within max 24 hours after you start watching it… Or $5 more to own it. Scammers.
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.
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.
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?
removed by mod
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 "
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.
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.
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?
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.
I want to steal their income they hate me and everything I stand for
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.
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 is. It’s just not theft of a good.
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.
Ahh, good ol’ price discrimination.
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.
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.
I absolutely agree! Renting a movie should cost nowhere near as much as purchasing the movie.
Hmmm… The region-free blu-ray
iswill be cheaper than this. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Barbie-Blu-ray-Region-Margot-Robbie/dp/B0BGY6PRK5When 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.
deleted by creator
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
Yep companies love DRM!
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.
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.
Alternatively you can just stream it on himovies.sx . Oppenheimer is still only in “Cam” quality.
One word: Stremio(+Torrentio)
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.
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.
Poor.
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.
It’s a comspiracy to convince people Moonwalker wasn’t faked!
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.
I can’t imagine feeling this hurt about a Barbie movie
Dude confused Barbie with Oppenheimer.
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.
Yep, Paw Patrol and Saw X are definitely propaganda!
I pirate so I can watch the propaganda for free, lol
Lol haha
Come on Barbie, let’s go party!
Yeah, $5 more to “own” the movie
Holy hell
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.
“Own” it.
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”.
AAAAAUUUGHHHHH!!!
Then, when they remove it, they offer you a measly $5 gift card only redeemable on their platform.
On that last post where someone got a refund they gave a full refund as a gift card and an additional 5 euro gift card.
(Not saying it’s an okay think to do, just in case you’re referencing it.)
A gift card isn’t a refund
It also doesn’t change the false implication they would “own” the digital copy
It’s a refund in the sense that you can exchange it for an item of equal value. A real refund would be more appropriate, I agree.
Equal value to the store != equal value to actual people.
The store has a profit margin, so the store values the item significantly less than the sticker price.
I totally get that, but it is what you paid for it. As long as it is greater than your original payment adjusted for inflation it’s fair enough. It sucks, I think there should be some sort of penalty for not getting proper licensing to let people use it forever (until your company shuts down).
No, it’s what you paid for one specific digital item that was valuable enough to you to be worth paying for. That doesn’t mean that anything else they have to offer would have enough value to cover the value of the item you’ve been deprived of.
The store has a profit margin, so the store values the item significantly less than the sticker price.
Usually if you complain you can get a real refund. The other post was Amazon and they usually bend over backwards to make customers happy. Still pretty shitty that you have to jump through some hoops, though.
Who does that??
What platform is this?
This looks like Google Play/TV or whatever they’re calling it nowadays.
Renting a DvD / Blueray was like 7$, 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.
It’s for people who don’t want to wait a few more months to pay $5.99 instead.
deleted by creator
corporate greed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“own it” until we delete it from your account because reasons, but hey, we’ll give you a coupon!
