Post by davidf on Feb 2, 2019 23:42:46 GMT
I’m not one to dictate or tell when I feel someone is doing wrong. But video streaming services. They’re convenient. And that’s what most people want nowadays. Why buy a Bluray or CD for £6 when you can rent the right to access thousands of films or millions of music tracks for £10 per month? Seems crazy not to right?
I’m sure we’ve all come across music streaming services that remove albums without notice due to licensing issues - one minute your favourite ABBA album is there to stream whenever you want, the next thing you know it’s no longer accessible. Or maybe they don’t even have a selection from your favourite artists? Video streaming services are no different. Your favourite film, or your kid’s favourite film can disappear at any time.
Last year, the news story hit that Apple were removing certain films from their video services. These weren’t just films that are there for people to stream as and when for a monthly fee - these were films that had been bought and “downloaded” by paying customers! And with no refunds. This on its own should have started alarm bells ringing.
Now, Ultraviolet - the download codes that usually come with a purchase of a physical copy of a film - is to close its doors. Not really an issue to those who bought their favourite films on Bluray, but certainly for those who had built up their film libraries from buying these codes on eBay and forums. They will still have access to their existing library - for the time being - but will no longer be able to continue to buy codes as the codes become extinct. In fact, it’s probably because there is such a large market of after sales codes that has brought about this action. What film company wants potential customers to buy their download codes from people who have already bought their product, rather than buying it from them?
It’s all about rights nowadays. If you own the rights to a film, you can do as you wish with it. You can sell a physical copy to an end user and be done with it, and your profit comes from the sale (less the cost of manufacture), OR, you can put your catalogue up for rental, which means that end user pays you on a monthly basis for their right to watch what they would normally have only paid once for. Which one makes better financial sense to a business? Do you sell a million pound property for a single hit, or rent it out for a steady monthly income that makes you a million every 10 years?
“Movie rental” makes sense if you want immediate access to a large number of hi-res 1080p movies right now if your existing collection is based around DVD. But we’re now in the 4K era, where movies look about as good as they’re ever going to get. So if in 5 years time your physical collection consists of pristine looking films on 4K Bluray, where can the film companies go from there? How can they sell you another copy of what you already own when you’re happy with what you’ve got? Answer? Renting.
Unless you have a physical copy in your possession, you do not own the right of access to the film (or music), whether you’ve paid for it or not. These companies are pushing you away from physical media in order to control the right of access to their product! This may sound like some crazy rantings, but mark my words - when film and music companies have killed off physical media and made streaming the number one way to consume their product, they will have 100% control.
Obviously, the little audio company is here to help you get the best quality from the films you watch and the music you listen to, regardless of source, but just beware of where the future is heading - THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION.
On one hand, I fully appreciate that trying to educate the masses to buy physical is basically digging one’s own grave - the hifi industry did it once before, in my opinion, by dictating that you shouldn’t have or use tone controls (or any type of manipulation of the source material), hence, alienating a vast number of music listeners who eventually turned away from conventional hi-fi systems - but on the other hand, some things need to be highlighted while these companies sidetrack the public with gimmicks like voice control.
I’m all for someone to convince me otherwise...
I’m sure we’ve all come across music streaming services that remove albums without notice due to licensing issues - one minute your favourite ABBA album is there to stream whenever you want, the next thing you know it’s no longer accessible. Or maybe they don’t even have a selection from your favourite artists? Video streaming services are no different. Your favourite film, or your kid’s favourite film can disappear at any time.
Last year, the news story hit that Apple were removing certain films from their video services. These weren’t just films that are there for people to stream as and when for a monthly fee - these were films that had been bought and “downloaded” by paying customers! And with no refunds. This on its own should have started alarm bells ringing.
Now, Ultraviolet - the download codes that usually come with a purchase of a physical copy of a film - is to close its doors. Not really an issue to those who bought their favourite films on Bluray, but certainly for those who had built up their film libraries from buying these codes on eBay and forums. They will still have access to their existing library - for the time being - but will no longer be able to continue to buy codes as the codes become extinct. In fact, it’s probably because there is such a large market of after sales codes that has brought about this action. What film company wants potential customers to buy their download codes from people who have already bought their product, rather than buying it from them?
It’s all about rights nowadays. If you own the rights to a film, you can do as you wish with it. You can sell a physical copy to an end user and be done with it, and your profit comes from the sale (less the cost of manufacture), OR, you can put your catalogue up for rental, which means that end user pays you on a monthly basis for their right to watch what they would normally have only paid once for. Which one makes better financial sense to a business? Do you sell a million pound property for a single hit, or rent it out for a steady monthly income that makes you a million every 10 years?
“Movie rental” makes sense if you want immediate access to a large number of hi-res 1080p movies right now if your existing collection is based around DVD. But we’re now in the 4K era, where movies look about as good as they’re ever going to get. So if in 5 years time your physical collection consists of pristine looking films on 4K Bluray, where can the film companies go from there? How can they sell you another copy of what you already own when you’re happy with what you’ve got? Answer? Renting.
Unless you have a physical copy in your possession, you do not own the right of access to the film (or music), whether you’ve paid for it or not. These companies are pushing you away from physical media in order to control the right of access to their product! This may sound like some crazy rantings, but mark my words - when film and music companies have killed off physical media and made streaming the number one way to consume their product, they will have 100% control.
Obviously, the little audio company is here to help you get the best quality from the films you watch and the music you listen to, regardless of source, but just beware of where the future is heading - THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION.
On one hand, I fully appreciate that trying to educate the masses to buy physical is basically digging one’s own grave - the hifi industry did it once before, in my opinion, by dictating that you shouldn’t have or use tone controls (or any type of manipulation of the source material), hence, alienating a vast number of music listeners who eventually turned away from conventional hi-fi systems - but on the other hand, some things need to be highlighted while these companies sidetrack the public with gimmicks like voice control.
I’m all for someone to convince me otherwise...