movies matter | criticism by maryann johanson
Thu May 05 2016, 09:49pm | 16 comments
There are some little details that don’t quite ring true, and I don’t think we’re hearing the whole story yet, but yeah, this is why I have the great big storage servers in the basement, run completely by me, rather than a cloud account.
“hang onto your media. One day, you won’t buy a movie. You’ll buy the right to watch a movie, and that movie will be served to you. If the companies serving the movie don’t want you to see it, or they want to change something, they will have the power to do so. They can alter history, and they can make you keep paying for things that you formerly could have bought. Information will be a utility rather than a possession. Even information that you yourself have created will require unending, recurring payments just to access.”
Yeah, this. This is why I still buy physical CDs from Amazon (they throw in the mp3 album as well, but this way I get physical backup). And remember when Amazon deleted Orwell’s “1984” from Kindles?
Very disturbing. I ranted about this a few years back.
I doubt they’re stealing my music because I don’t use iTunes or anything Apple-related when I store music. Then again I’m one of those old-fashioned people who still own CDs. And will undoubtedly continue to do so despite what certain cartoon foxes say.
In any event, I can’t help but be reminded of all those people I see in grocery stores who like to kvetch about the new chip readers yet are too stubborn to go back to using cash because they prefer the convenience of cards. TANSTAAFL as the late Robert Heinlein once said…
*sigh* Fine, Apple is stealing your music. Ignore the facts in that article that still criticizes the design of Apple Music, but hey, more fun to believe what you wish to believe is true.
Apple has had nearly a decade to fix issues with it’s software, what’s the holdup?
this is why I have the great big storage servers in the basement
That’s not something everyone can have, though.
As I said on Facebook, there are an *awful* lot of caveats in that article.
Sure, though at least these days it’s only a money constraint – if you have the cash, you can buy a ready-built NAS that’ll store as much data as you throw at it. You don’t need to be a techie sysadmin type.
It pays to read (and understand) the fine print before signing on that virtual dotted line. Some clouds have no silver lining.
All these companies know damn well that their TOS are impenetrable, insanely long, and almost impossible to understand without consulting a lawyer. They *count* on the fact that almost no one reads them: they are designed to be skipped over. It’s intentional.
Perhaps, but when there’s a lot at stake (your own property) the best action is no action. Don’t join up if there’s any doubt whatsoever. Ignorance of the contract (or the law) is never a strong defense.
My favorite TOS sentence was in Java’s years ago (no longer in there, can’t remember which version did away with it) that the user was not allowed to use Java to run a nuclear power plant.
Every one of them is written in a way that guarantees people will have trouble reading and comprehending it.
How do you manage to exist on the Internet with that attitude? Everywhere we go online involves TOS and giving up information about ourselves. Why are companies like Apple able to get away with impenetrable TOSes? The solution is to not let them do that, not to withdraw from participating in modern life.
It’s easy, really. I don’t do Facebook or Twitter. I don’t use supermarket “loyalty” cards. I don’t sacrifice my own privacy and property for the marginal “benefits” of social media overexposure. It isn’t worth it to me, personally, but for others who feel compelled to immerse themselves in the social media jungle, I can only advise: caveat emptor.
all regions (where available):
based on the Aggregate theme by Elegant Themes | powered by WordPress