They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
February 14, 2024 10:08 AM Subscribe
Amazon Sued Over Prime Video Ads. A class-Action Complaint Accuses Tech Giant of ‘Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive, Unscrupulous’ Conduct.
Amazon is accused of deceptive trade practices for adding commercials to a streaming service that has long been marketed as an ad-free experience.
To quote the filing (PDF warning): “To stream movies and TV shows without ads, Amazon customers must now pay an additional $2.99 per month… This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for.”
The class action lawsuit, seeking $5 million in damages, aims to prevent Amazon from engaging in further deceptive practices on behalf of users who subscribed to Prime before December 28, 2023. Allegations in the suit include breach of contract, false advertising, and unfair competition, in violation of consumer protection laws in California and Washington.
Source for the Banksy quote used in the title.
Amazon is accused of deceptive trade practices for adding commercials to a streaming service that has long been marketed as an ad-free experience.
To quote the filing (PDF warning): “To stream movies and TV shows without ads, Amazon customers must now pay an additional $2.99 per month… This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for.”
The class action lawsuit, seeking $5 million in damages, aims to prevent Amazon from engaging in further deceptive practices on behalf of users who subscribed to Prime before December 28, 2023. Allegations in the suit include breach of contract, false advertising, and unfair competition, in violation of consumer protection laws in California and Washington.
Source for the Banksy quote used in the title.
I think it was AVClub that had an article about how some showrunners/writers are furious, too, because they did not write or edit their episodes for ad breaks. In the case of the one of the shows, the first handful of episodes dropped before the ad breaks started, and then rest after; viewers are seeing a fundamentally different show now.
posted by TwoStride at 10:26 AM on February 14 [25 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 10:26 AM on February 14 [25 favorites]
Seems like an entirely unnecessary own-goal by Amazon, which is surely technologically capable of waiting to impose an increased cost for an ad-free product until the individual expiration of yearly agreements. I'm sure they are also capable of figuring out the time when the most agreements expire and introducing the change the month before.
posted by praemunire at 10:33 AM on February 14 [12 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 10:33 AM on February 14 [12 favorites]
This is why piracy is a moral imperative.
You wouldn't force an ad brake in the middle of a car, would you?
posted by signal at 10:35 AM on February 14 [75 favorites]
You wouldn't force an ad brake in the middle of a car, would you?
posted by signal at 10:35 AM on February 14 [75 favorites]
...they were interspersed, and in the worst way imaginable to boot; always abrupt, sometimes not even cleanly on a scene break, always making me feel like they had removed content and inserted the ad over part of it.
This is how Disney+ seems to have implemented ads, too, which made the new season of Loki utterly unwatchable for me. I think I bailed after two, maybe two-and-a-half episodes because I just couldn't take the abrupt (and far too often) breaks. I'm honestly gunshy about ever watching D+ again, because of the horrible implementation.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:39 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
This is how Disney+ seems to have implemented ads, too, which made the new season of Loki utterly unwatchable for me. I think I bailed after two, maybe two-and-a-half episodes because I just couldn't take the abrupt (and far too often) breaks. I'm honestly gunshy about ever watching D+ again, because of the horrible implementation.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:39 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
Related: Amazon Prime Video drops Dolby Vision and Atmos unless you pay extra. An extra bit of enshittification on top of the ads.
Meanwhile, on the High Seas, The.Lord.of.the.Rings.The.Rings.of.Power.S01E05.2160p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.Atmos.DV.MKV.x265-SMURF will always be ad-free, in Dolby Vision and Atmos. No matter what Amazon does.
posted by Nelson at 10:47 AM on February 14 [39 favorites]
Meanwhile, on the High Seas, The.Lord.of.the.Rings.The.Rings.of.Power.S01E05.2160p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.Atmos.DV.MKV.x265-SMURF will always be ad-free, in Dolby Vision and Atmos. No matter what Amazon does.
posted by Nelson at 10:47 AM on February 14 [39 favorites]
always abrupt, sometimes not even cleanly on a scene break, always making me feel like they had removed content and inserted the ad over part of it
I hate to admit this because it means I am part of the problem, but this is why I finally broke down and paid for YouTube Premium. Beforehand, I would watch something innocuous like a Periodic Video or a pair of drag queens having a conversation, and an advertisement would literally be dropped in the middle of a sentence. Occasionally promoting the agenda of some Nazi Republican anti-vax group.
The decision to implement advertisements in this way was almost certainly deliberate on the part of Google management. Also of both Amazon business analysts, who likely modeled that this would cause end-user frustration and increased upgrades to the upper-tier paid product, and Amazon developers, who implemented the result of that modeling.
First-world problems, etc. but this behavior reflects on the vacuum of regulatory oversight of American media outlets, and I hope the class action suit prevails. This goes beyond enshittification and into predatory business tactics.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:49 AM on February 14 [16 favorites]
I hate to admit this because it means I am part of the problem, but this is why I finally broke down and paid for YouTube Premium. Beforehand, I would watch something innocuous like a Periodic Video or a pair of drag queens having a conversation, and an advertisement would literally be dropped in the middle of a sentence. Occasionally promoting the agenda of some Nazi Republican anti-vax group.
The decision to implement advertisements in this way was almost certainly deliberate on the part of Google management. Also of both Amazon business analysts, who likely modeled that this would cause end-user frustration and increased upgrades to the upper-tier paid product, and Amazon developers, who implemented the result of that modeling.
First-world problems, etc. but this behavior reflects on the vacuum of regulatory oversight of American media outlets, and I hope the class action suit prevails. This goes beyond enshittification and into predatory business tactics.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:49 AM on February 14 [16 favorites]
If you use any of the FireTV devices in conjunction with a Prime membership you now get FreeVee, which gives off the appearance of a "live TV" experience but in reality it's just pseudo-broadcasting episodes of shows in a linear stream. Like there's a Murder, She Wrote channel that shows up on the grid with definite start and stop times, etc. But it's just picking up the same episode and attaching it when you select a channel.
ANYWAY, those channels already have commercial breaks left over from the original shows and the ads are algorithmically inserted based on your Amazon shopping habits, search results, phase of the moon, who knows what else. And we can prove this by searching for things and watching the ads change.
So we've made it into a game to search for completely random stuff on Amazon just to screw with the ads that come on. Privacy through obsfucation! And I say that as a Spanish speaking RV-owner that needs new bedding and a battery charger for the '91 Celica I tow behind the rig.
posted by JoeZydeco at 10:53 AM on February 14 [33 favorites]
ANYWAY, those channels already have commercial breaks left over from the original shows and the ads are algorithmically inserted based on your Amazon shopping habits, search results, phase of the moon, who knows what else. And we can prove this by searching for things and watching the ads change.
So we've made it into a game to search for completely random stuff on Amazon just to screw with the ads that come on. Privacy through obsfucation! And I say that as a Spanish speaking RV-owner that needs new bedding and a battery charger for the '91 Celica I tow behind the rig.
posted by JoeZydeco at 10:53 AM on February 14 [33 favorites]
I'm finishing series/movies on the streamers and then looking to get rid of them one by one, e.g., finishing watching all the Ghibli movies I want on MAX, The Expanse on Prime. Because fuck them. I've carried some subscriptions for a while without really watching that much because they were relatively inexpensive. But now with all of them jacking up their prices by 20, 30% and adding ads, they've lost my business. I'll just pick and choose when enough programming piles up that I care about, sign up for a month, binge and leave. A bit more work for me, but this greedhead bullshit is too annoying not to thwart.
posted by the sobsister at 11:09 AM on February 14 [27 favorites]
posted by the sobsister at 11:09 AM on February 14 [27 favorites]
I'm surprised at the move, because it does seem to put Prime subscriptions at risk. There are enough ways to get free shipping that Prime's core service isn't that great, so if the other services under the Prime umbrella get worse, there's less and less motivation to renew your subscription. Although if you're never allowed to cancel, maybe that's moot.
posted by mittens at 11:09 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by mittens at 11:09 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
You know what feels good? Not subscribing to Amazon Prime or Prime Video.
posted by tovarisch at 11:09 AM on February 14 [28 favorites]
posted by tovarisch at 11:09 AM on February 14 [28 favorites]
I remain stunned that in this interactive age, with ALL the data collection and tracking that advertisers, websites and streamers do... online and streaming advertising is STILL shittier than advertising before the Internet. I've never thrown a print magazine down in disgust for repeatedly showing me a revolting and utterly mistargeted ad.
But yeah, I won't (yet) subscribe to any streaming service with ads.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:11 AM on February 14 [23 favorites]
But yeah, I won't (yet) subscribe to any streaming service with ads.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:11 AM on February 14 [23 favorites]
the sobsister: I'll just pick and choose when enough programming piles up that I care about, sign up for a month, binge and leave. A bit more work for me, but this greedhead bullshit is too annoying not to thwart.
For what it's worth, the guys on the sports podcast Hang Up And Listen came to the same conclusion this week when discussing the just-announced multi-network sports streaming platform. Definitionally, streaming is just a worse business than cable because there's so little friction for subscribers to drop a streaming subscription.
So I would think that the platform should be working harder to retain subscribers than to drive them away...but Amazon often surprises me.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:18 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
For what it's worth, the guys on the sports podcast Hang Up And Listen came to the same conclusion this week when discussing the just-announced multi-network sports streaming platform. Definitionally, streaming is just a worse business than cable because there's so little friction for subscribers to drop a streaming subscription.
So I would think that the platform should be working harder to retain subscribers than to drive them away...but Amazon often surprises me.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:18 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
everybody here is saying what I'm already feeling but I think IT NEEDS TO BE SAID LOUDER
and ummm, somewhat related
posted by philip-random at 11:21 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
and ummm, somewhat related
posted by philip-random at 11:21 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
What's been fascinating to me about this as I catch up on Reacher and Mr and Mrs Smith is that I think all the commercials were for Amazon's own products? I assumed Amazon was making money hand over fist by selling access to my eyeballs but instead it feels like they're just playing internal budget games between the Amazon Prime Video division and the Ring division. In some ways it turns me off from paying the $2.99 even more, knowing it's just all the same money shuffling around: they made up this advertising problem with their own products and now they want me to reimburse them for it?
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 11:24 AM on February 14 [28 favorites]
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 11:24 AM on February 14 [28 favorites]
How much of Amazon's business is based on people who subscribe to Prime primarily to watch video? I've never even considered dropping Prime, because the free shipping is easily worth the price of Prime to me.
That said, I did file a meaningless but good feeling Better Business Bureau report about the price hike -- not because of the ads themselves, but because even WHEN you cough up the $2.99, there are still some videos you can only watch with ads. That's bullshit.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:30 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
That said, I did file a meaningless but good feeling Better Business Bureau report about the price hike -- not because of the ads themselves, but because even WHEN you cough up the $2.99, there are still some videos you can only watch with ads. That's bullshit.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:30 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
I did a double-take at the $5 million the lawsuit is supposedly asking for. What is $5 million to Amazon? (Google says their reported net income for 2023 was $30.42 billion, which makes $5 million not even a rounding error.)
That said, I'm not sure where the nasdaq.com article took that number from. The filing does not mention any number unless I missed it, and does say (among other things) "Plaintiff and class members [...] have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial" and
That said, I'm not sure where the nasdaq.com article took that number from. The filing does not mention any number unless I missed it, and does say (among other things) "Plaintiff and class members [...] have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial" and
Plaintiff seeks the following relief for himself and the class:posted by trig at 11:30 AM on February 14 [8 favorites]
• An order certifying the asserted claims, or issues raised, as a class action;
• A judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the proposed class;
• Damages, treble damages, and punitive damages where applicable;
• Restitution;
• Rescission;
• Disgorgement, and other just equitable relief;
• Pre- and post-judgment interest;
• An injunction prohibiting Defendant’s deceptive conduct, as allowed by law;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by law;
• Any additional relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.
I've been a Prime member for what... a decade? Something like that. I cancelled at the end of last year because of this ad bullshit. If they had just raised the price, I would have grumbled but probably not done anything about it. But forcing me to opt out of ads AND pay a higher price for the privilege just strikes me as so disrespectful.
posted by dephlogisticated at 11:36 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
posted by dephlogisticated at 11:36 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
> This is why piracy is a moral imperative.
Amazon (a middle-man) is shitty, but let's not fucking pretend that stealing stuff is a good way to reward the people who create the art we like.
If you want to protest, unsubscribe from Prime and buy DVDs or Blurays. Don't be an asshole.
posted by riotnrrd at 11:44 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
Amazon (a middle-man) is shitty, but let's not fucking pretend that stealing stuff is a good way to reward the people who create the art we like.
If you want to protest, unsubscribe from Prime and buy DVDs or Blurays. Don't be an asshole.
posted by riotnrrd at 11:44 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]
I did a double-take at the $5 million the lawsuit is supposedly asking for. What is $5 million to Amazon?My assumption is that this covers the cost of the lawsuit and they really want to force Amazon to stop serving ads to anyone who didn’t sign up when it was advertised as commercial free. Not asking for much money makes it harder for their lawyers to portray the lawsuit as a cash grab.
posted by adamsc at 11:45 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
> but let's not fucking pretend that stealing stuff is a good way to reward the people who create the art we like.
piracy isn't theft, but if piracy were theft it would still be a moral imperative.
additionally: no one is pretending, much less fucking pretending.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 11:47 AM on February 14 [25 favorites]
piracy isn't theft, but if piracy were theft it would still be a moral imperative.
additionally: no one is pretending, much less fucking pretending.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 11:47 AM on February 14 [25 favorites]
This move pissed me off ... but I never actually watch Prime Video, so it's kind of hard to get too upset.
I mean, it's a cesspit of Dinesh D'Souza films and other bottom-feeding dreck. Why would I ever bother watching it? It's wall-to-wall utter junk. The random freebie channels on Roku are better than Prime Video.
posted by aramaic at 11:48 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
I mean, it's a cesspit of Dinesh D'Souza films and other bottom-feeding dreck. Why would I ever bother watching it? It's wall-to-wall utter junk. The random freebie channels on Roku are better than Prime Video.
posted by aramaic at 11:48 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
$5 million in controversy is the threshold to bring a case under the purview of the Class Action Fairness Act.
posted by praemunire at 11:48 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 11:48 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
piracy isn't theft, but if piracy were theft it would still be a moral imperative.No, it wouldn’t be. You don’t have a fundamental right to watch Rings of Power, no matter how badly you want to. If you don’t like the terms on offer, there are more alternative entertainment options than you’ll be able to use in your lifetime – and then, unlike when you pirate it, you won’t be supporting the company whose policies you disagree with.
posted by adamsc at 11:52 AM on February 14 [12 favorites]
I never actually watch Prime Video ... It's wall-to-wall utter junk.
Congratulations on combining the "do I have to own a TV to care about this" and "your favorite TV shows suck" clichés in one comment!
posted by Nelson at 11:52 AM on February 14 [54 favorites]
Congratulations on combining the "do I have to own a TV to care about this" and "your favorite TV shows suck" clichés in one comment!
posted by Nelson at 11:52 AM on February 14 [54 favorites]
I'll just pick and choose when enough programming piles up that I care about, sign up for a month, binge and leave. A bit more work for me, but this greedhead bullshit is too annoying not to thwart.
Isn't, isn't this how you're supposed to do it?
First we got mad when it was cable and we had to pay for Fox just to get CNN, and HBO was an extra fee. "If I could just get a la carte channels, then I'd be set."
Now we pay per "channel," but it makes no sense to pay all year when you only have two shows a year. Just wait until the season is available and pay for a month.
Now if they want me to pay extra to avoid ads? No. The monthly fee exists so I don't have to watch ads. If you want me to watch ads anyway? Then piracy it is, and I don't feel even the tiniest of guilt over it. Amazon et al have made this bed.
posted by nushustu at 11:52 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Isn't, isn't this how you're supposed to do it?
First we got mad when it was cable and we had to pay for Fox just to get CNN, and HBO was an extra fee. "If I could just get a la carte channels, then I'd be set."
Now we pay per "channel," but it makes no sense to pay all year when you only have two shows a year. Just wait until the season is available and pay for a month.
Now if they want me to pay extra to avoid ads? No. The monthly fee exists so I don't have to watch ads. If you want me to watch ads anyway? Then piracy it is, and I don't feel even the tiniest of guilt over it. Amazon et al have made this bed.
posted by nushustu at 11:52 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
I'm confused by the terms of the lawsuit.
Is the statement that if you sign up for a subscription service the terms can never be changed as long as you have no breaks in your subscription? What about raising the price of the subscription? Would that be misleading advertising to the people who subscribed before?
And what would happen if Amazon just shut down the Prime TV service? Would that be actionable?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:53 AM on February 14
Is the statement that if you sign up for a subscription service the terms can never be changed as long as you have no breaks in your subscription? What about raising the price of the subscription? Would that be misleading advertising to the people who subscribed before?
And what would happen if Amazon just shut down the Prime TV service? Would that be actionable?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:53 AM on February 14
I mean, it's a cesspit of Dinesh D'Souza films and other bottom-feeding dreck. Why would I ever bother watching it? It's wall-to-wall utter junk.
I strongly disagree. They have such a deep catalog of good, less famous movies that no other streaming service compares. I had prime mostly for the streaming rather than the free delivery.
That said, I cancelled prime as soon as the new ad policy took effect.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:54 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
I strongly disagree. They have such a deep catalog of good, less famous movies that no other streaming service compares. I had prime mostly for the streaming rather than the free delivery.
That said, I cancelled prime as soon as the new ad policy took effect.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:54 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Occasionally promoting the agenda of some Nazi Republican anti-vax group.
Suppose you were a Republican and suppose you were a Nazi. But I repeat myself.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Suppose you were a Republican and suppose you were a Nazi. But I repeat myself.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
I compromise by pirating stuff, then forgetting to watch it.
So, morally, I think I'm in the clear.
posted by ryanrs at 11:58 AM on February 14 [67 favorites]
So, morally, I think I'm in the clear.
posted by ryanrs at 11:58 AM on February 14 [67 favorites]
I'm confused by the terms of the lawsuit.
When one is confused by something, it is often helpful to read it.
"But last month, Amazon changed the deal. To stream movies and tv shows without
ads, Amazon customers must now pay an additional $2.99 per month. This is true even for people who purchased the yearly, ad-free subscription, and who are now mid-way through their subscription. This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for." (emphasis added)
posted by praemunire at 12:01 PM on February 14 [13 favorites]
When one is confused by something, it is often helpful to read it.
"But last month, Amazon changed the deal. To stream movies and tv shows without
ads, Amazon customers must now pay an additional $2.99 per month. This is true even for people who purchased the yearly, ad-free subscription, and who are now mid-way through their subscription. This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for." (emphasis added)
posted by praemunire at 12:01 PM on February 14 [13 favorites]
Anyone catch the ads Amazon is running about ad-free listening with Prime? Because I'm pretty sure the blitz disclaimers at the end says "some shows may have ads" which seems like, exactly the thing FTC should punish. But maybe my ears just aren't quick enough.
Definitionally, streaming is just a worse business than cable because there's so little friction for subscribers to drop a streaming subscription.
Structurally, I think the reason for this is that cable monopolies demanded a hefty cut of subscription money, and were thus incentivized to lock you in to channel subscriptions.
posted by pwnguin at 12:03 PM on February 14
Definitionally, streaming is just a worse business than cable because there's so little friction for subscribers to drop a streaming subscription.
Structurally, I think the reason for this is that cable monopolies demanded a hefty cut of subscription money, and were thus incentivized to lock you in to channel subscriptions.
posted by pwnguin at 12:03 PM on February 14
It takes a special kind of disdain for your customers to take the traditional broadcast television model for commercials and make something so much worse that people wish they could just go back to that.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:06 PM on February 14 [20 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:06 PM on February 14 [20 favorites]
Just a reminder that the evil Bond villain Jeff Bezos desperately needs the ad revenue, so have some sympathy folks. The size of this lawsuit is staggering and could clearly drive Amazon out of business. They must be quaking in their boots.
(Snark aside, I'm glad it's happening even if it's just to prove a point)
posted by treepour at 12:06 PM on February 14
(Snark aside, I'm glad it's happening even if it's just to prove a point)
posted by treepour at 12:06 PM on February 14
Add in 'make Dogma stream-able again' and I'll join the class.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:09 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:09 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
unlike when you pirate it, you won’t be supporting the company whose policies you disagree with.
In what way does pirating a copy of an episode of a tv show support the company that made the tv show?
posted by rhymedirective at 12:10 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
In what way does pirating a copy of an episode of a tv show support the company that made the tv show?
posted by rhymedirective at 12:10 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
> but let's not fucking pretend that stealing stuff is a good way to reward the people who create the art we like.
“Stealing” is not exactly accurate or libraries would be theft. For individual creators I do think it’s important to slosh some money their way. For big-budget collaborative productions, though? I will enjoy this era while the money and tech make “the golden age of television” possible, but I found things to watch in previous eras and I’m sure I will find other things when this business model collapses. It won’t collapse due to me watching shows ad-free. It will collapse due to the greed of plutocrats.
posted by rikschell at 12:13 PM on February 14 [11 favorites]
“Stealing” is not exactly accurate or libraries would be theft. For individual creators I do think it’s important to slosh some money their way. For big-budget collaborative productions, though? I will enjoy this era while the money and tech make “the golden age of television” possible, but I found things to watch in previous eras and I’m sure I will find other things when this business model collapses. It won’t collapse due to me watching shows ad-free. It will collapse due to the greed of plutocrats.
posted by rikschell at 12:13 PM on February 14 [11 favorites]
Prime Video content is so dreadful I can't believe anyone subscribes for it. Get yourself a free library card and sign up for Kanopy and Hoopla (or whatever your local alternative is). They are MILES better than Amazon. It's absolutely no contest.
posted by dobbs at 12:15 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
posted by dobbs at 12:15 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
Yes but if you don’t subscribe you won’t be able to talk about the hot new show of the moment that everyone will tire of after 8-20 episodes and will vanish from the public’s consciousness the second it ends or gets cancelled.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:19 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:19 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Corporations can pretty much outspend you to gain access to you. Netflix has a problem where the $7/mo ad laden subscription generates more ARPU than the $15.49/mo without ads. >$8.50/mo per subscriber. Advertisers are that fucking desperate to get to our eyeballs they're literally driving dumptrucks of money to content shops to get access.
Expect all the tiers to eventually include ads. There's just too much money at stake.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:19 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
Expect all the tiers to eventually include ads. There's just too much money at stake.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:19 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
Since Fleabag, the Expanse, the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, I’m a Virgo, Jury Duty (it was there for a little while, Good Omens, Mozart in the Jungle, Small Axe (less a show than a movie anthology), Undone, heck even Betas and Alpha House, all ended, I haven’t really watched much Amazon Prime Video, except they really do have a great library of great old movies, which I’ve been slowly making my way through. However, no way in hell I’m continuing that with commercials, nor am I adding another fee. It’s basically worth it for the free delivery though, so whatever.
posted by General Malaise at 12:24 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
posted by General Malaise at 12:24 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
we all realize that one day, maybe not tomorrow, may not even this year, the 'cancel anytime, no contract' gravy train will also end.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:27 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:27 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
This Ars Technica article emphasizes that the lawsuit class members are people who signed up for an annual, ad-free subscription, and then were retroactively put into the ad tier. Which is a huge dick move by Amazon.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:29 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:29 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
I read in one of the comments at Ars Technica that Amazon made a fundamental psychological mistake.
They should have offered a cheaper service that had ads. Then, at the end of the year, they could have raised their overall rates. At the end, they would have ended up in the same place, but no one would feel like something was taken away from them.
The way they did it just made all their customers mad at them.
posted by eye of newt at 12:35 PM on February 14 [32 favorites]
They should have offered a cheaper service that had ads. Then, at the end of the year, they could have raised their overall rates. At the end, they would have ended up in the same place, but no one would feel like something was taken away from them.
The way they did it just made all their customers mad at them.
posted by eye of newt at 12:35 PM on February 14 [32 favorites]
I know it's not TFA, but I will never pass up the chance to slam Netflix for shoveling millions towards transphobic bs, while absolutely slaughtering any LGBTQIA+ content
posted by Jacen at 12:36 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 12:36 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Heartstoppers is one of the best LGBTQIA+ shows I've ever seen. It is produced by Netflix.
Amazon Prime has many very good and critically acclaimed shows. The Expanse is particularly popular around here. I'm being well entertained by Mr. and Mrs. Smith right now.
It's absolutely fine to not like shows or whole networks. But it's obnoxious to declare "everything there sucks" and (implicitly) "you are an idiot for liking it". (This last comment is not a response to Jacen's, but rather several comments here.)
posted by Nelson at 12:38 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Amazon Prime has many very good and critically acclaimed shows. The Expanse is particularly popular around here. I'm being well entertained by Mr. and Mrs. Smith right now.
It's absolutely fine to not like shows or whole networks. But it's obnoxious to declare "everything there sucks" and (implicitly) "you are an idiot for liking it". (This last comment is not a response to Jacen's, but rather several comments here.)
posted by Nelson at 12:38 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Now if they want me to pay extra to avoid ads? No. The monthly fee exists so I don't have to watch ads.
When I was a child in the early 1970s I heard about this wonderful new invention called cable TV, and the coolest thing about it was that, because you were paying for it, there wouldn't be any commercials. I was very surprised when we finally got it in the early 80s.
posted by JanetLand at 12:42 PM on February 14 [16 favorites]
When I was a child in the early 1970s I heard about this wonderful new invention called cable TV, and the coolest thing about it was that, because you were paying for it, there wouldn't be any commercials. I was very surprised when we finally got it in the early 80s.
posted by JanetLand at 12:42 PM on February 14 [16 favorites]
When I bought a Macbook recently, I got three months of Apple TV free. Great, me thinks. So I set that up and quickly realized Apple TV really sucks. You can browse for a movie or show and land on one that looks good, only to find out it's pay for play. What? In this pay-for service I have to pay on top of that for some shows? At least there's no ads there...yet.
I haven't tried Amazon Prime because I have multiple friends and acquaintances--I can think of three off the top of my head--who told me it sucks. So I never bothered. I've only ever had Netflix, which while the wife and I have turned complaining about Netflix a kind of sport, it's actually a pretty decent service (if they could ever figure out a decent menu layout), but if Netflix ever starts plonking in ads, then I'll go back to my seafaring ways.
posted by zardoz at 12:53 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
I haven't tried Amazon Prime because I have multiple friends and acquaintances--I can think of three off the top of my head--who told me it sucks. So I never bothered. I've only ever had Netflix, which while the wife and I have turned complaining about Netflix a kind of sport, it's actually a pretty decent service (if they could ever figure out a decent menu layout), but if Netflix ever starts plonking in ads, then I'll go back to my seafaring ways.
posted by zardoz at 12:53 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
The myth of cable not having ads in the start feels like the myth that 'once the loans were paid off the toll roads would be free'
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:53 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:53 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
So, if you don’t want to pay for streaming with ads, then buy the DVD? What DVD? Little seems to be “printed” anymore due to the streaming market. I miss being able to build my library of physical objects. It seems that the availability of seeing movies of any sort is decreasing back to the days before VHS…
posted by njohnson23 at 12:57 PM on February 14 [16 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 12:57 PM on February 14 [16 favorites]
No, you got three months of Apple TV+ for free. TV Plus. That gets you Apple's own produced content for free, for three months. There's some good stuff in there.
I agree that the branding is stupid and confusing, though. They should have called it Apple Originals or something like that.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:58 PM on February 14 [10 favorites]
I agree that the branding is stupid and confusing, though. They should have called it Apple Originals or something like that.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:58 PM on February 14 [10 favorites]
Not to derail, but the confusion about AppleTV might be that subscribing to AppleTV doesn't give you free access to movies and series that stream on other platforms like Hulu, although your queue of Hulu shows/movies will show up in the Apple TV app. As for having to pay for stuff, Apple's rental/purchase business is separate from its AppleTV service.
In any case, AppleTV shows and movies don't have any inserted ads.
posted by emelenjr at 1:01 PM on February 14
In any case, AppleTV shows and movies don't have any inserted ads.
posted by emelenjr at 1:01 PM on February 14
zardoz, Amazon prime video is basically a shop front for streaming video, so it works pretty much the same as your description of Apple TV. You get one section for free with your Prime subscription and the rest is for sale to anyone who comes in, including you.
There is some really high quality stuff in Apple but not enough to justify a continuous subscription. Amazon is more complicated due to the way they tie stuff together. The part of Amazon music you got with Prime used to be ok but they made that suck last year. The value is definitely dropping off in being a Prime subscriber.
posted by biffa at 1:02 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
There is some really high quality stuff in Apple but not enough to justify a continuous subscription. Amazon is more complicated due to the way they tie stuff together. The part of Amazon music you got with Prime used to be ok but they made that suck last year. The value is definitely dropping off in being a Prime subscriber.
posted by biffa at 1:02 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Living as we do in Toronto there's never been any advantage to paying for Prime. There is so much spare logistics capacity here, the "free shipping" option always arrives in a couple days anyway. Amazon still sucks but at least we don't pay them monthly to suck.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:12 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:12 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
the worst part of this FAST technology is that you can tell it's all automated - every X number of minutes, run X number of ads. It does not matter if it's in the middle of a scene or even dialogue. When you're putting these ads into shows that were filmed for commercial breaks, there's no excuse to do this, other than you can and there will be no consequences because "it's free." However, the one thing the lawsuit gets right in my eyes is that this isn't Freevee, Amazon's FAST station, it's Prime, which I am paying an increasing amount of money for.
and don't give me the free, fast delivery argument for the Prime fee - delivery times in my part of the country have gotten WORSE in the last couple of years, and that's after they built a shipping warehouse about 150 miles away.
posted by jkosmicki at 1:17 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
and don't give me the free, fast delivery argument for the Prime fee - delivery times in my part of the country have gotten WORSE in the last couple of years, and that's after they built a shipping warehouse about 150 miles away.
posted by jkosmicki at 1:17 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
Corporations can pretty much outspend you to gain access to you. Netflix has a problem where the $7/mo ad laden subscription generates more ARPU than the $15.49/mo without ads. >$8.50/mo per subscriber. Advertisers are that fucking desperate to get to our eyeballs they're literally driving dumptrucks of money to content shops to get access.
Expect all the tiers to eventually include ads. There's just too much money at stake.
How long before it becomes an effective bidding way? "Based on our advertiser contracts, it will cost you $20 to go ad-free this month."
posted by Dysk at 1:50 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Expect all the tiers to eventually include ads. There's just too much money at stake.
How long before it becomes an effective bidding way? "Based on our advertiser contracts, it will cost you $20 to go ad-free this month."
posted by Dysk at 1:50 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Is the statement that if you sign up for a subscription service the terms can never be changed as long as you have no breaks in your subscription? What about raising the price of the subscription? Would that be misleading advertising to the people who subscribed before?
Yeah the problem is that Amazon subscribes for a year at a time, not month to month. If you pay for a year of ad-free stuff, you should get a year of ad-free stuff. I think their tech isn't good enough to give some but not all prime members ad-free stuff depending on their subscription date, and that's why it happened, but it's really fucking stupid. The lawsuit is in the right.
posted by corb at 2:11 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
Yeah the problem is that Amazon subscribes for a year at a time, not month to month. If you pay for a year of ad-free stuff, you should get a year of ad-free stuff. I think their tech isn't good enough to give some but not all prime members ad-free stuff depending on their subscription date, and that's why it happened, but it's really fucking stupid. The lawsuit is in the right.
posted by corb at 2:11 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
you wouldn't force an ad brake in the middle of a car, would you?
When this comes to pass I'll know where they got the idea. Thanks for nothing.
posted by cccorlew at 2:14 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
When this comes to pass I'll know where they got the idea. Thanks for nothing.
posted by cccorlew at 2:14 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
The myth of cable not having ads in the start feels like the myth that 'once the loans were paid off the toll roads would be free'
The first purpose of cable TV was to bring into the home more broadcast channels, that you couldn't normally pick up with an antenna. Where I grew up, there was near saturation of cable subscribers because without it, you could only get 3 stations with an antenna.
The first extra-charge cable-only networks came later, and most offered ad-free content. Til they didn't... Sad that streaming is going the same route.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:40 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
The first purpose of cable TV was to bring into the home more broadcast channels, that you couldn't normally pick up with an antenna. Where I grew up, there was near saturation of cable subscribers because without it, you could only get 3 stations with an antenna.
The first extra-charge cable-only networks came later, and most offered ad-free content. Til they didn't... Sad that streaming is going the same route.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:40 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
you wouldn't force an ad brake in the middle of a car, would you?
When this comes to pass I'll know where they got the idea. Thanks for nothing.
Tom O’Donnell was there first.
We have Prime Video because my partner is addicted to the free shipping scam, and it has consistently had more flicks from my watchlist than Netflix. The recommendation algo has, from time to time, introduced me to things outside of my knowledge, which is cool. The interface is absolute dogshit, shockingly bad.
Last month we finally ditched Netflix: I'd like to say it was only because of their support of transphobia, but to be honest we just got sick of them. Always had the fewest number of watchlist flicks.
We replaced Netflix with Disney+ and I'm pleasantly surprised. Healthy watchlist correlation, a not-the-worst-I've-seen UI and a reasonable price point. We'll see how long that lasts.
The service with the highest watchlist offerings, for me? By a long shot, Tubi. Now you know what movies I like to watch lol. But the ratio is astonishing: for every movie that Netflix has, Amazon is maybe double that. And where Netflix and Amazon are listing dozens of films, Tubi has hundreds. I know most are considered "trash", but it's evidence of some truly remarkable licensing and distribution deals on their part. Plus certain adblockers deal with their interstitial ads so next to piracy, Tubi wins hands down.
All this means is that for this household, we shan't be paying Amazon's protection money. Good luck to the lawsuit in holding back the tide of shit.
posted by Ten Cold Hot Dogs at 3:08 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
When this comes to pass I'll know where they got the idea. Thanks for nothing.
Tom O’Donnell was there first.
We have Prime Video because my partner is addicted to the free shipping scam, and it has consistently had more flicks from my watchlist than Netflix. The recommendation algo has, from time to time, introduced me to things outside of my knowledge, which is cool. The interface is absolute dogshit, shockingly bad.
Last month we finally ditched Netflix: I'd like to say it was only because of their support of transphobia, but to be honest we just got sick of them. Always had the fewest number of watchlist flicks.
We replaced Netflix with Disney+ and I'm pleasantly surprised. Healthy watchlist correlation, a not-the-worst-I've-seen UI and a reasonable price point. We'll see how long that lasts.
The service with the highest watchlist offerings, for me? By a long shot, Tubi. Now you know what movies I like to watch lol. But the ratio is astonishing: for every movie that Netflix has, Amazon is maybe double that. And where Netflix and Amazon are listing dozens of films, Tubi has hundreds. I know most are considered "trash", but it's evidence of some truly remarkable licensing and distribution deals on their part. Plus certain adblockers deal with their interstitial ads so next to piracy, Tubi wins hands down.
All this means is that for this household, we shan't be paying Amazon's protection money. Good luck to the lawsuit in holding back the tide of shit.
posted by Ten Cold Hot Dogs at 3:08 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
If you watch that show and mention it to other people, interact with content about it online, buy any related merchandise, etc. you’re sending a signal to other people that the show is worth their attention. Even if it’s just making a joke, commenting on Fanfare, or sharing a meme on social media, it helps their PR when you tell other people that they should give their attention to that company’s work instead of artists whose works are available on terms compatible with your values.unlike when you pirate it, you won’t be supporting the company whose policies you disagree with.In what way does pirating a copy of an episode of a tv show support the company that made the tv show?
Also, companies monitor trackers. Even if they can’t legally pursue you they use that data to see what’s popular and use it to guide what they do next.
posted by adamsc at 3:12 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
For better or worse, I probably watch more from Prime than any other streaming service. This is mostly because I'm old, and very interested in movies from the '60s, '70s and '80s; Netflix has gotten better about this -- they have a lot of Scorsese right now -- but it's still mostly stuff I wouldn't pay $16 for if my partner were not addicted to their Korean soap operas.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:26 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:26 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
If you want to protest, unsubscribe from Prime and buy DVDs or Blurays. Don't be an asshole.
This works in a world where companies are still producing and selling physical media. Increasingly, movies and shows released by streaming companies are streaming only, with no physical media. Streaming through the company is the only way to access the media without piracy.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:34 PM on February 14 [10 favorites]
This works in a world where companies are still producing and selling physical media. Increasingly, movies and shows released by streaming companies are streaming only, with no physical media. Streaming through the company is the only way to access the media without piracy.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:34 PM on February 14 [10 favorites]
Related to that is the fact that for many of these shows, piracy now is the only way they'll be available at some point in the future.
This is also already true for many older shows and movies as well - no copy of them would have survived to the present day if it weren't for the fact that somebody pirated a copy way back when.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:43 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
This is also already true for many older shows and movies as well - no copy of them would have survived to the present day if it weren't for the fact that somebody pirated a copy way back when.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:43 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
Even with physical releases: those DVDs and Blurays won't last forever, and copying them off the physical disk requires illegally circumventing the encryption. It's piracy or bust when it comes to preservation in the long run.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:46 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:46 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
>>I'm confused by the terms of the lawsuit.
>When one is confused by something, it is often helpful to read it.
I hear you, but in addition to the "halfway through the year they changed the terms" thing the following is also presented:
20. Amazon’s actions are also unfair. As discussed above, Amazon advertised “commercial-free” Prime Video for years, to induce consumers to purchase its Prime subscription. Reasonable consumers, who rely on Amazon to provide accurate and truthful information about its services, cannot reasonably avoid this injury. And Amazon’s actions offer no countervailing benefits—misrepresenting its service harms both consumers and honest competition.So back to my confusion. Does the fact that they advertised something for years mean they can't change the subscription terms? Obviously the fact that they changed them on people mid-year is a problem, but the paragraph quoted above seems to go beyond that.
Rereading it I'm wondering if I'm seeing something that isn't there, so maybe nevermind.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:54 PM on February 14
IANAL, but that reads to me like they're trying to establish that this isn't like any other mundane change to terms and conditions or privacy policy or whatever, it is specifically a bait-and-switch wrt a key feature and the way they advertised the service for a long time.
posted by Dysk at 5:00 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 5:00 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
The bellwether for me was this:
I used to use Amazon Music, I used to pay for it, because I could upload my Music library and access it anywhere.
Then, they stopped allowing uploads, but i could still listen to the songs I had previously uploaded.
Then, one day I discovered that the ability to use the shuffle toggle was now locked behind a paywall.
My partner and I just canceled our Prime membership. Once they started with the ads, the slope had gotten right slippery.
posted by chromecow at 5:51 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
I used to use Amazon Music, I used to pay for it, because I could upload my Music library and access it anywhere.
Then, they stopped allowing uploads, but i could still listen to the songs I had previously uploaded.
Then, one day I discovered that the ability to use the shuffle toggle was now locked behind a paywall.
My partner and I just canceled our Prime membership. Once they started with the ads, the slope had gotten right slippery.
posted by chromecow at 5:51 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
You wouldn't force an ad brake in the middle of a car, would you? - signalEveryone has been too polite to point out the (I assume) misspelling, but I'm going to single it out because it's absolutely perfect, and hilarious.
posted by It is regrettable that at 6:18 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
"for years" there is just color, to stress the reasonability of the consumers' behavior for purposes of the California UCL.
posted by praemunire at 7:04 PM on February 14
posted by praemunire at 7:04 PM on February 14
Everyone has been too polite to point out the (I assume) misspelling
I...genuinely did not think it was a misspelling. I was picturing the car stopping and an ad coming up on the screen.
posted by praemunire at 7:05 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
I...genuinely did not think it was a misspelling. I was picturing the car stopping and an ad coming up on the screen.
posted by praemunire at 7:05 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
I refuse to do any business with Amazon. I don't need anything badly enough to give those ghouls money.
You don’t have a fundamental right to watch Rings of Power, no matter how badly you want to.
Nobody should have to watch Rings of Power.
But to the larger point, a fundamental right is a pretty high bar. I don't have a fundamental right to a peanut butter sandwich. Doesn't mean I shouldn't get one.
Your watching a show costs the producers nothing. It affects them in no way. They don't spend an extra dollar or shed one more drop of sweat. Nobody is called back to film a scene again just for you. You've taken nothing from them. Any obligation you feel is a personal choice.
If the options are pirate it or don't watch, it makes no sense not to pirate. Especially given how much media is prohibitively expensive or simply unavailable legally outside North America and Europe.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:07 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
You don’t have a fundamental right to watch Rings of Power, no matter how badly you want to.
Nobody should have to watch Rings of Power.
But to the larger point, a fundamental right is a pretty high bar. I don't have a fundamental right to a peanut butter sandwich. Doesn't mean I shouldn't get one.
Your watching a show costs the producers nothing. It affects them in no way. They don't spend an extra dollar or shed one more drop of sweat. Nobody is called back to film a scene again just for you. You've taken nothing from them. Any obligation you feel is a personal choice.
If the options are pirate it or don't watch, it makes no sense not to pirate. Especially given how much media is prohibitively expensive or simply unavailable legally outside North America and Europe.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:07 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
> because you were paying for it, there wouldn't be any commercials
Yeah, I don't really ever watch either over-the-air TV or cable any more, but on those occasions when I take a gander, it seems like they are almost 50% ads. I'll visit a friend in a nursing home where they have the TV on all day and all night, and I just can't quite understand how anyone can stand to watch. It seems more ad than show, and the same inane ads over and over and over.
My impression of this over time is, that at first TV had some ads, then more, then gradually wall-to-wall ads. When cable started it had no ads, then a few on certain channels, finally devolving into pretty much all crap ads all the time on all channels (save for a few premium channels you have to pay a lot for, and therefore I never personally see, that only have a few ads here and there).
Anyway, I don't see how the streaming services can possibly avoid going down the very same rabbit hole for the very same reason.
They start with few/no ads to build an audience, then gradually introduce them, then increase them, then increase them to the absolute maximum possible.
It's like a ratchet that only ever can go in one specific direction.
Part of the thinking here seems to be, there is a captive audience and if you start feeding them ads and then more and more and more ads they will have no option but to sit and take it because what else are they going to do?
What they are missing here is, there are plenty of other things to do - from piracy to getting content from your local library to reading a book, playing a video game, or just going out for a walk.
Or of course going for an ad blocker.
Personally, as soon as I am spending my time watching ads instead of show, I'm out of there. (I mean it's one thing if there wer like an ad or two at the beginning and the end. But they are never, ever, ever satisfied with just that. It soon becomes more ad than show. So I bail out early in this process.)
Anyway, going out for a walk. Bye.
posted by flug at 7:25 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I don't really ever watch either over-the-air TV or cable any more, but on those occasions when I take a gander, it seems like they are almost 50% ads. I'll visit a friend in a nursing home where they have the TV on all day and all night, and I just can't quite understand how anyone can stand to watch. It seems more ad than show, and the same inane ads over and over and over.
My impression of this over time is, that at first TV had some ads, then more, then gradually wall-to-wall ads. When cable started it had no ads, then a few on certain channels, finally devolving into pretty much all crap ads all the time on all channels (save for a few premium channels you have to pay a lot for, and therefore I never personally see, that only have a few ads here and there).
Anyway, I don't see how the streaming services can possibly avoid going down the very same rabbit hole for the very same reason.
They start with few/no ads to build an audience, then gradually introduce them, then increase them, then increase them to the absolute maximum possible.
It's like a ratchet that only ever can go in one specific direction.
Part of the thinking here seems to be, there is a captive audience and if you start feeding them ads and then more and more and more ads they will have no option but to sit and take it because what else are they going to do?
What they are missing here is, there are plenty of other things to do - from piracy to getting content from your local library to reading a book, playing a video game, or just going out for a walk.
Or of course going for an ad blocker.
Personally, as soon as I am spending my time watching ads instead of show, I'm out of there. (I mean it's one thing if there wer like an ad or two at the beginning and the end. But they are never, ever, ever satisfied with just that. It soon becomes more ad than show. So I bail out early in this process.)
Anyway, going out for a walk. Bye.
posted by flug at 7:25 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
P.S. I'm looking forward to my approximately $3.12 refund check and/or equivalent in Amazon media credits, coming to me in oh, say, about 14 years as the result of this lawsuit.
posted by flug at 7:29 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
posted by flug at 7:29 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
Your watching a show costs the producers nothing. It affects them in no way. They don't spend an extra dollar or shed one more drop of sweat. Nobody is called back to film a scene again just for you. You've taken nothing from them. Any obligation you feel is a personal choice.All morals are a personal choice but your decision that you’re entitled to use other people’s work contrary to their wishes is likely not as consequence-free as you’re claiming. If you couldn’t get it free, odds are good that you’d be paying someone for their work, maybe not the same someone but it’d be helping someone make a living making art. We should always hesitate before devaluing art, and since you’d be helping others do so as well there’s a network effect here.
posted by adamsc at 8:13 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
All I have to add is that I am super glad that I do not have to moderate this thread. Ooof.
posted by 3j0hn at 8:21 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
posted by 3j0hn at 8:21 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
I...genuinely did not think it was a misspelling. I was picturing the car stopping and an ad coming up on the screen.
I did not think it was a misspelling either, but I was imagining an ad coming up on the screen and speakers while driving, and the brakes being disabled for the duration of the ad or clicking on an on-screen payment button, whichever comes first. So on an uncrowded highway a driver might have the option to endure the entire ad rather than pay, while driving in traffic could lead to solo games of chicken with a finger hovering over the payment button in case of a stopped car ahead, a red light, or a kid running into the street. To increase effectiveness all navigation and/or other audio would be interrupted and audio volume set to a suitably ear-splitting level for the duration of the ad.
posted by zoinks at 9:28 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
I did not think it was a misspelling either, but I was imagining an ad coming up on the screen and speakers while driving, and the brakes being disabled for the duration of the ad or clicking on an on-screen payment button, whichever comes first. So on an uncrowded highway a driver might have the option to endure the entire ad rather than pay, while driving in traffic could lead to solo games of chicken with a finger hovering over the payment button in case of a stopped car ahead, a red light, or a kid running into the street. To increase effectiveness all navigation and/or other audio would be interrupted and audio volume set to a suitably ear-splitting level for the duration of the ad.
posted by zoinks at 9:28 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
your decision that you’re entitled to use other people’s work contrary to their wishes is likely not as consequence-free as you’re claiming. If you couldn’t get it free, odds are good that you’d be paying someone for their work, maybe not the same someone but it’d be helping someone make a living making art.
There are several assumptions here I disagree with. It isn't a question of being entitled to anything. I just don't think you are somehow stealing someone's labor by seeing something they worked on. It doesn't create some metaphysical connection. Pirating a movie, buying a used copy of it, or not watching it are all the same in terms of impact on the creators.
The idea that every pirate is a missed sale doesn't hold up. You can pirate a lot more than you can buy. If you have a thirty dollar entertainment budget, you don't support more artists by stopping consuming media when you run out of cash.
And while I don't know the exact numbers, I am betting very, very little of anyone's prime subscription goes to pay the actors in the shows they watch. Small creators using patreon or directly selling their creations both need the cash more, and actually get more of the money spent when you support them, relative to paying for a streaming service.
Life is short and money is fake. If someone can't afford to spend on art, they are only doing themself harm by choosing not to consume things that will make them happy.
And with companies like Amazon, there are real ethical concerns about funding them in the first place.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:46 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
There are several assumptions here I disagree with. It isn't a question of being entitled to anything. I just don't think you are somehow stealing someone's labor by seeing something they worked on. It doesn't create some metaphysical connection. Pirating a movie, buying a used copy of it, or not watching it are all the same in terms of impact on the creators.
The idea that every pirate is a missed sale doesn't hold up. You can pirate a lot more than you can buy. If you have a thirty dollar entertainment budget, you don't support more artists by stopping consuming media when you run out of cash.
And while I don't know the exact numbers, I am betting very, very little of anyone's prime subscription goes to pay the actors in the shows they watch. Small creators using patreon or directly selling their creations both need the cash more, and actually get more of the money spent when you support them, relative to paying for a streaming service.
Life is short and money is fake. If someone can't afford to spend on art, they are only doing themself harm by choosing not to consume things that will make them happy.
And with companies like Amazon, there are real ethical concerns about funding them in the first place.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:46 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Life is short and money is fake. If someone can't afford to spend on art, they are only doing themself harm by choosing not to consume things that will make them happy.This is the entitlement I was referring to: there’s a ton of free content, more than a few lifetimes’ worth, plus whatever you can get from the local library, plus whatever is available with ads. Most people who pirate can easily afford to pay for what they actually consume – the truly desperate tend not to have computers, internet, or time to sit in their comfortable homes – so it’s far more frequently a question of priorities or pique than a financial necessity.
When you use someone’s work without compensation, you’re saying all of the other works in the world aren’t good enough for you - you’re entitled to this particular work when you want it, at the price you choose, and that your need is more important than the creators’ income (let’s be honest here, statistically none of the people who say “the artist could have a Patreon” ever even look, and they’re certainly not going to back the camera team or someone’s editor). It’s an interesting reverberation of the capitalist consumption drive with the same hyperfocus instant gratification but I don’t think that’s healthy in either form.
posted by adamsc at 4:39 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Most people who pirate can easily afford to pay for what they actually consume – the truly desperate tend not to have computers, internet, or time to sit in their comfortable homes – so it’s far more frequently a question of priorities or pique than a financial necessity.
Hi have you heard of unemployment benefits, or disability? How much do you think they pay? Or are we not desperate enough?
When you use someone’s work without compensation, you’re saying all of the other works in the world aren’t good enough for you
You're actually not saying any such thing. Art is not fungible.
posted by Dysk at 4:53 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Hi have you heard of unemployment benefits, or disability? How much do you think they pay? Or are we not desperate enough?
When you use someone’s work without compensation, you’re saying all of the other works in the world aren’t good enough for you
You're actually not saying any such thing. Art is not fungible.
posted by Dysk at 4:53 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Tubi is free and has ads, Kanopy is free with no ads, Criterion Channel isn’t free but has no ads…beyond that I mostly only turn my TV on to watch DVDs I buy at thrift stores for a buck or two a pop.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:06 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:06 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Tubi is free and has ads, Kanopy is free with no ads
Both seem to be US-only though.
posted by Dysk at 5:21 AM on February 15
Both seem to be US-only though.
posted by Dysk at 5:21 AM on February 15
Also all those people saying just buy DVD's / Blu-rays.. hardly anyone sells consumer players any more!
And the new ones are prohibitive expensive for most people - assuming that if you are struggling to pay for Netflix [or insert alternative streaming service here] then a £/$ 200 dvd/blu-ray player is waaaay out of your non-essentials budget.
And yes they can currently be sourced from charity shops, but like anything second hand that's a crapshoot - and even then, good luck finding ones that don't use a SCART connector - which most modern - and by modern I mean the last two (ish) decades - use !!
It's.
All
So
Frustrating and
Infuriating.
AND that's assuming the thing you want is even available on dvd/blu ray anyway
posted by Faintdreams at 5:30 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
And the new ones are prohibitive expensive for most people - assuming that if you are struggling to pay for Netflix [or insert alternative streaming service here] then a £/$ 200 dvd/blu-ray player is waaaay out of your non-essentials budget.
And yes they can currently be sourced from charity shops, but like anything second hand that's a crapshoot - and even then, good luck finding ones that don't use a SCART connector - which most modern - and by modern I mean the last two (ish) decades - use !!
It's.
All
So
Frustrating and
Infuriating.
AND that's assuming the thing you want is even available on dvd/blu ray anyway
posted by Faintdreams at 5:30 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
You wouldn't force an ad brake in the middle of a car, would you?
I can't look it up right now but wasn't there an FPP not too long ago about car companies starting to turn features into paid subscriptions? Things like if you want to use those heated seats you need to pay extra for them, and keep paying. I don't remember if ads were part of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if companies decided the nice screens they've been including in cars are a good place to remind owners of the services they could be accessing. And once you do that, why not also partner up with third parties to inject little ads about their car- or trip-related products?
Now I'm imagining taking a road trip and the screen is showing little geographically-relevant ads for local restaurants, attractions, and gas stations (just 3 miles away!)
posted by trig at 5:40 AM on February 15
I can't look it up right now but wasn't there an FPP not too long ago about car companies starting to turn features into paid subscriptions? Things like if you want to use those heated seats you need to pay extra for them, and keep paying. I don't remember if ads were part of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if companies decided the nice screens they've been including in cars are a good place to remind owners of the services they could be accessing. And once you do that, why not also partner up with third parties to inject little ads about their car- or trip-related products?
Now I'm imagining taking a road trip and the screen is showing little geographically-relevant ads for local restaurants, attractions, and gas stations (just 3 miles away!)
posted by trig at 5:40 AM on February 15
Sense8 - a 'Netflix Original' series, was cancelled in 2018 - and although still (currently) available on Netflix, there is no legal way to own a physical copy of the series.
And if Netflix decide that the server/potential licencing/contract costs of keeping Sense8 on the service are above a minimum?
Then they can just yoink it off the service and that's it.
It's legally gone forever.
This is not the only 'Netflix Original' in this position and I'm guessing it won't be the last.
It's just the first one that sprang immediately to mind.
posted by Faintdreams at 5:40 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
there’s a ton of free content, more than a few lifetimes’ worth, plus whatever you can get from the local library, plus whatever is available with ads. Most people who pirate can easily afford to pay for what they actually consume
More than a few lifetimes' worth? I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic, you sincerely believe this, or if you just don't watch enough media to understand what you're talking about.
When people watch media, they're not just the stereotype of vacant faces idly clicking through channels to watch 'whatever is on'. They have tastes and preferences for certain genres, and also for certain levels of quality. And those are reasonable preferences. People who enjoy watching science fiction, for example, should not be forced to watch reality television just because it's on and it's free.
And once they've watched it, for most people, that means they have watched it and they don't need to rewatch it unless it is a Very Favorite Thing. And that means you run out of things to watch, especially because in a post successful paid streaming world, most of the good things to watch have been clawed back by the paid streaming services. So now most streaming services are a few good things, and a lot of shitty ones. For every movie I watch on Tubi, for example, I spend about fifteen-twenty minutes sorting through absolute drecht and stuff I've already seen. Absolutely no streaming service offers you the ability to hide things you have already watched, probably because it would make obvious the paucity of their selection.
And of course, getting things from the local library requires you to have a DVD player. I will give you two guesses as to what group of people does not generally have DVD players attached to a TV, but watches things solely on devices. Hint: it is not the wealthiest categories.
posted by corb at 5:49 AM on February 15 [7 favorites]
More than a few lifetimes' worth? I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic, you sincerely believe this, or if you just don't watch enough media to understand what you're talking about.
When people watch media, they're not just the stereotype of vacant faces idly clicking through channels to watch 'whatever is on'. They have tastes and preferences for certain genres, and also for certain levels of quality. And those are reasonable preferences. People who enjoy watching science fiction, for example, should not be forced to watch reality television just because it's on and it's free.
And once they've watched it, for most people, that means they have watched it and they don't need to rewatch it unless it is a Very Favorite Thing. And that means you run out of things to watch, especially because in a post successful paid streaming world, most of the good things to watch have been clawed back by the paid streaming services. So now most streaming services are a few good things, and a lot of shitty ones. For every movie I watch on Tubi, for example, I spend about fifteen-twenty minutes sorting through absolute drecht and stuff I've already seen. Absolutely no streaming service offers you the ability to hide things you have already watched, probably because it would make obvious the paucity of their selection.
And of course, getting things from the local library requires you to have a DVD player. I will give you two guesses as to what group of people does not generally have DVD players attached to a TV, but watches things solely on devices. Hint: it is not the wealthiest categories.
posted by corb at 5:49 AM on February 15 [7 favorites]
Most people who pirate can easily afford to pay for what they actually consume
Why are you acting like these are opposites? We have eh 11tb of stuff on a server so far... and a few thousand dollars worth of discs in boxes in the basement. At this point pretty much the only discs we keep out are 4ks, and honestly we'll only put them in the player if we're having Big Official It's-Movie-Night, let's turn out the lights and make popcorn and make a fuss over it. Otherwise it's look on the server.
The people who keep 50+tb media servers are often? more often than not? the same people keep buying $30-40 new releases from Shout Factory and Criterion.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:54 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Why are you acting like these are opposites? We have eh 11tb of stuff on a server so far... and a few thousand dollars worth of discs in boxes in the basement. At this point pretty much the only discs we keep out are 4ks, and honestly we'll only put them in the player if we're having Big Official It's-Movie-Night, let's turn out the lights and make popcorn and make a fuss over it. Otherwise it's look on the server.
The people who keep 50+tb media servers are often? more often than not? the same people keep buying $30-40 new releases from Shout Factory and Criterion.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:54 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
I don’t know, I wouldn’t consume a fountain drink without paying for it. I don’t see what’s so different about media and art. You’re consuming it, you pay for it unless told otherwise.
I don’t want to hear semantic arguments about the difference between taking or stealing or using or consuming, blah blah blah. That’s purely for the benefit of people not paying for stuff. You know what you’re doing when you sail that digital sea. There’s no greater truth or message to industry. You just don’t want to pay. You wouldn’t have pirated it if you weren’t interested in it.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 5:55 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
I don’t want to hear semantic arguments about the difference between taking or stealing or using or consuming, blah blah blah. That’s purely for the benefit of people not paying for stuff. You know what you’re doing when you sail that digital sea. There’s no greater truth or message to industry. You just don’t want to pay. You wouldn’t have pirated it if you weren’t interested in it.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 5:55 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
And of course, getting things from the local library requires you to have a DVD player.
...and a local library that has a DVD collection! Mine doesn't, and hasn't for years now.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t consume a fountain drink without paying for it. I don’t see what’s so different about media and art.
In this case, the fact that there is no scarcity; when you take a drink, you deprive the owners of the fountain a drink they could sell to someone else. When you make a copy of a piece of media, you are not depriving anyone of any property.
You just don’t want to pay. You wouldn’t have pirated it if you weren’t interested in it.
...or you can't pay. Or it isn't available in your region at all. The media giants kinda won, and they are mainstream culture now. Unless you want to freeze poor people and those unfortunate enough to live in places that don't see distribution out of participating in human culture, you accept a bit of piracy.
posted by Dysk at 5:59 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
...and a local library that has a DVD collection! Mine doesn't, and hasn't for years now.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t consume a fountain drink without paying for it. I don’t see what’s so different about media and art.
In this case, the fact that there is no scarcity; when you take a drink, you deprive the owners of the fountain a drink they could sell to someone else. When you make a copy of a piece of media, you are not depriving anyone of any property.
You just don’t want to pay. You wouldn’t have pirated it if you weren’t interested in it.
...or you can't pay. Or it isn't available in your region at all. The media giants kinda won, and they are mainstream culture now. Unless you want to freeze poor people and those unfortunate enough to live in places that don't see distribution out of participating in human culture, you accept a bit of piracy.
posted by Dysk at 5:59 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
Man, everytime piracy comes up on this site, it's the same old arguments over and over again.
Y'all. Media is not tangible. It's not owned, it can never be owned. Media, writing, song, theatre, all of it, is phenomena. Money and ownership only apply to it in as much as capitalists control access to it using rules set up to benefit themselves.
Pay people for media when you can, be just and dutiful about it. But for humanity's sake, don't let someone say you can't archive and enjoy something humanity created just because you don't have the cash, or don't live in the right region, or didn't know about it until it ceased being available through capitalism-friendly means.
Copy that shit. Future generations are relying onpirates archivists to preserve our cultural heritage. Corporations make money by limiting access, which is in opposition to the requirements of humanity's heritage and cultural preservation. Fuck 'em.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:01 AM on February 15 [25 favorites]
Y'all. Media is not tangible. It's not owned, it can never be owned. Media, writing, song, theatre, all of it, is phenomena. Money and ownership only apply to it in as much as capitalists control access to it using rules set up to benefit themselves.
Pay people for media when you can, be just and dutiful about it. But for humanity's sake, don't let someone say you can't archive and enjoy something humanity created just because you don't have the cash, or don't live in the right region, or didn't know about it until it ceased being available through capitalism-friendly means.
Copy that shit. Future generations are relying on
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:01 AM on February 15 [25 favorites]
I wouldn’t consume a fountain drink without paying for it
I'm going to be enormously honest here and say that I absolutely would if there were not criminal penalties for doing so; I don't believe in capital and I don't believe that a company purchasing a flavored syrup and then mixing water into it and selling it for 3000% of the price they bought it for is just or reasonable. Similarly, while I would have qualms about taking art from an individual artist who was selling directly to the public, I don't have qualms about pirating work available digitally and produced by corporations, because I know that artist receives no or nearly no subsidiary royalties for the amount of times that work is streamed anyway. If they did, the calculus might change. Currently, they don't.
posted by corb at 6:03 AM on February 15 [11 favorites]
I'm going to be enormously honest here and say that I absolutely would if there were not criminal penalties for doing so; I don't believe in capital and I don't believe that a company purchasing a flavored syrup and then mixing water into it and selling it for 3000% of the price they bought it for is just or reasonable. Similarly, while I would have qualms about taking art from an individual artist who was selling directly to the public, I don't have qualms about pirating work available digitally and produced by corporations, because I know that artist receives no or nearly no subsidiary royalties for the amount of times that work is streamed anyway. If they did, the calculus might change. Currently, they don't.
posted by corb at 6:03 AM on February 15 [11 favorites]
And the new ones are prohibitive expensive for most people - assuming that if you are struggling to pay for Netflix [or insert alternative streaming service here] then a £/$ 200 dvd/blu-ray player is waaaay out of your non-essentials budget.
I mean, there are problems with the long-term viability of physical media as a going concern, but this is way overblown. You can get a perfectly fine Blu-ray player for under 80USD.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:04 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I mean, there are problems with the long-term viability of physical media as a going concern, but this is way overblown. You can get a perfectly fine Blu-ray player for under 80USD.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:04 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
(let’s be honest here, statistically none of the people who say “the artist could have a Patreon” ever even look, and they’re certainly not going to back the camera team or someone’s editor).
Do you have those supposed statistics to hand, by any chance?
And like, the bit about editors and camerapeople is just weird - they get paid by the artist at the time of production, exactly the same as in any other traditional payment setup. The camera crew/editors/sound engineers/mixers don't have their own patreon because we pay the artists, and the artists pay them for their labour and expertise in making their art. Just like now - the studios pay the camera crews, and we pay the studios. No camera crew is getting royalties from your Netflix subscription - they get paid a wage or salary when they work. Which is no different if you're giving your money to a patreon rather than Netflix (only there's fewer middlemen diluting the takings).
posted by Dysk at 6:12 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Do you have those supposed statistics to hand, by any chance?
And like, the bit about editors and camerapeople is just weird - they get paid by the artist at the time of production, exactly the same as in any other traditional payment setup. The camera crew/editors/sound engineers/mixers don't have their own patreon because we pay the artists, and the artists pay them for their labour and expertise in making their art. Just like now - the studios pay the camera crews, and we pay the studios. No camera crew is getting royalties from your Netflix subscription - they get paid a wage or salary when they work. Which is no different if you're giving your money to a patreon rather than Netflix (only there's fewer middlemen diluting the takings).
posted by Dysk at 6:12 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
this is way overblown. You can get a perfectly fine Blu-ray player for under 80USD
You know there are people sitting in jail right now because they and their families are still saving up for the 50$ bond, right?
I mean, I try (and absolutely fail, I'm sorry) not to be That Guy, but I think it's easy to forget, especially here on Metafilter, how absolutely brutal and deep poverty is in some places in America.
posted by corb at 6:13 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
You know there are people sitting in jail right now because they and their families are still saving up for the 50$ bond, right?
I mean, I try (and absolutely fail, I'm sorry) not to be That Guy, but I think it's easy to forget, especially here on Metafilter, how absolutely brutal and deep poverty is in some places in America.
posted by corb at 6:13 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
You know there are people sitting in jail right now because they and their families are still saving up for the 50$ bond, right?
Oh for god's sake corb.
I'm not talking about people in prison (people in prison don't have Disney+ subscriptions, either.) My comment was a direct response to someone talking about a DVD player as though it were a Vision Pro.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:17 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Oh for god's sake corb.
I'm not talking about people in prison (people in prison don't have Disney+ subscriptions, either.) My comment was a direct response to someone talking about a DVD player as though it were a Vision Pro.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:17 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Like yeah, it's simultaneously true that there are lots of people in the United States sitting in jail right now because they or their family can't scrape up a bond, and that is a human rights violation, but it's also true that there are tens of millions of people in the United States that can afford to buy a DVD player.
I cannot with this least charitable read of the comment shit on Metafilter today.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:20 AM on February 15
I cannot with this least charitable read of the comment shit on Metafilter today.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:20 AM on February 15
I'm not in the U.S.A
DVD Players exists internationally yes?
As do DVD's?
AS DOES the concept of POVERTY?
:: Great googly moogly. ::
posted by Faintdreams at 6:24 AM on February 15
DVD Players exists internationally yes?
As do DVD's?
AS DOES the concept of POVERTY?
:: Great googly moogly. ::
posted by Faintdreams at 6:24 AM on February 15
You literally called out USD/GBP so I assumed you were referring to one of those two countries, in both of which a DVD player can be purchased for as little as 30USD or 34GBP.
At any rate, I think it's time for DVDplayergate to end, because I don't know who y'all are mad at, but it's not me.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:31 AM on February 15
At any rate, I think it's time for DVDplayergate to end, because I don't know who y'all are mad at, but it's not me.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:31 AM on February 15
Like yeah, it's simultaneously true that there are lots of people in the United States sitting in jail right now because they or their family can't scrape up a bond
I think the implication is that of you can't scrape together $50 to get a family member out of jail, you can't afford $50!for a DVD player.
posted by Dysk at 6:33 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I think the implication is that of you can't scrape together $50 to get a family member out of jail, you can't afford $50!for a DVD player.
posted by Dysk at 6:33 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I think the implication is that of you can't scrape together $50 to get a family member out of jail, you can't afford $50!for a DVD player.
I mean... yes? Am I speaking English? What is happening in here?
posted by rhymedirective at 6:34 AM on February 15
I mean... yes? Am I speaking English? What is happening in here?
posted by rhymedirective at 6:34 AM on February 15
So the argument that lots of people can't afford a DVD player stands if it's $50, $30, $200. It doesn't matter what it costs exactly, if it's two digits or more it will be beyond reach for many people. The argument that lots of people can afford a DVD player is a weird objection.
posted by Dysk at 6:38 AM on February 15
posted by Dysk at 6:38 AM on February 15
Yes, I apologize for phrasing that badly, and it's true, the primary person I'm mad at is not, in fact, you, but kind of the broader harm that casual assumptions about what people can reasonably afford wind up doing to people like my clients. I happened to read the comment on a bond hearing week and it struck me the wrong way, because judges go in with these assumptions as well, and wind up setting bonds way higher than people and their families can afford, because they think about their own ideas about the poorest people *they* know, which are still better off than the poorest people who can't afford a lawyer. I do mean the intent behind the comment - that families often can't afford even very cheap electronics, and that i still think they deserve to watch media to relax from what are ultimately really stressful lives - but no one here really deserves the anger.
posted by corb at 6:40 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:40 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
I was at goodwill just yesterday. They had a bunch of dvd players for $5.
posted by nushustu at 6:49 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by nushustu at 6:49 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I don’t know, I wouldn’t consume a fountain drink without paying for it. I don’t see what’s so different about media and art.
An old chestnut for you.
posted by nushustu at 6:50 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
An old chestnut for you.
posted by nushustu at 6:50 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Thanks corb, I appreciate that. I think this is a case where several people are having slightly different conversations.
The conversation around poverty and its stresses and the right of people in poverty to enjoy their lives is a completely separate one from the conversation about the capitalist desire to paywall film and television behind a monthly subscription, thus functionally making it illegal to archive things for future generations.
It's also true that even if you got a free DVD player you still need stuff to play in the DVD player, and unfortunately all of the cheap DVD bins at big box stores have largely disappeared, libraries don't have as many, it's functionally impossible to rent the things anymore, etc etc etc.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:50 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
The conversation around poverty and its stresses and the right of people in poverty to enjoy their lives is a completely separate one from the conversation about the capitalist desire to paywall film and television behind a monthly subscription, thus functionally making it illegal to archive things for future generations.
It's also true that even if you got a free DVD player you still need stuff to play in the DVD player, and unfortunately all of the cheap DVD bins at big box stores have largely disappeared, libraries don't have as many, it's functionally impossible to rent the things anymore, etc etc etc.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:50 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
the truly desperate tend not to have computers, internet, or time to sit in their comfortable homes – so it’s far more frequently a question of priorities or pique than a financial necessity.
Their homes often aren't very comfortable, but these days even us poor folks usually have computers and internet. They are necessary for work, and even folks on disability can get help acquiring them.
I very seldom pirate anything other than abandonware and the occasional textbook. But by far the biggest pirate I know is a brilliant, dirt poor, physicallu disabled man. I am not going to wag my finger at him because he isn't paying Amazon for the privilege of watching Wheel of Time.
(I do judge him for being a Robert Jordan fan, but that's just for fun.)
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:25 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Their homes often aren't very comfortable, but these days even us poor folks usually have computers and internet. They are necessary for work, and even folks on disability can get help acquiring them.
I very seldom pirate anything other than abandonware and the occasional textbook. But by far the biggest pirate I know is a brilliant, dirt poor, physicallu disabled man. I am not going to wag my finger at him because he isn't paying Amazon for the privilege of watching Wheel of Time.
(I do judge him for being a Robert Jordan fan, but that's just for fun.)
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:25 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
People park in no-parking zones.
People take 12 items through the 10-item-or-less express lane.
Drivers don't always stop at stop signs.
People jaywalk.
People fiddle on their taxes.
People pirate content.
We all do them. Only the last gets touted here as a right or a "moral imperative". Yeah, tear down capitalism, one stolen show at a time. ¡Viva la Revolución!
Does the opinion of an artist count?
posted by Artful Codger at 7:47 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
People take 12 items through the 10-item-or-less express lane.
Drivers don't always stop at stop signs.
People jaywalk.
People fiddle on their taxes.
People pirate content.
We all do them. Only the last gets touted here as a right or a "moral imperative". Yeah, tear down capitalism, one stolen show at a time. ¡Viva la Revolución!
Does the opinion of an artist count?
The composer, conductor and pianist began her advocacy as a reaction to the beginnings of a “free buffet” of musical content offered by sites such as Napster and Limewire. “A lot of people early on were like, ‘All musicians should give their music away for free’,” she says. “Excuse me? If you only knew the financial investment, the time, the heartache, the everything that goes into making music.”Pirate content, if that's your thing, and be happy. Just please don't pretend like it's some natural right, or entirely victimless. Anyway, piracy is a derail away from the thread's subject.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:47 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Kanopy is free with no ads
Kanopy is awesome! But it is definitely not free. It's paid for by your library, or educational institution, or whatever method you use to access the media. The pricing structure is complicated and changing.
Libraries are an answer to so many questions about media access for people at all income levels. Libraries are magic and I'm convinced if they did not exist already, would never be allowed in 21st century America.
Is there any way to access Amazon Prime or Netflix original content via a library? I'm assuming not unless they were also released on DVD / BluRay.
posted by Nelson at 8:04 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Kanopy is awesome! But it is definitely not free. It's paid for by your library, or educational institution, or whatever method you use to access the media. The pricing structure is complicated and changing.
Libraries are an answer to so many questions about media access for people at all income levels. Libraries are magic and I'm convinced if they did not exist already, would never be allowed in 21st century America.
Is there any way to access Amazon Prime or Netflix original content via a library? I'm assuming not unless they were also released on DVD / BluRay.
posted by Nelson at 8:04 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
We all do them. Only the last gets touted here as a right or a "moral imperative".
We don't all do them. I have not once done anything on that list bar the last one (which I think is the one thing not like the others in myriad ways).
Does the opinion of an artist count?
The artist whose opinion you link to is effectively saying that streaming is just as bad as piracy. It's also only one person's opinion. Artists aren't a monolith, and for every Lars Ulrich there's an Ignacio Escolar.
posted by Dysk at 8:24 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
We don't all do them. I have not once done anything on that list bar the last one (which I think is the one thing not like the others in myriad ways).
Does the opinion of an artist count?
The artist whose opinion you link to is effectively saying that streaming is just as bad as piracy. It's also only one person's opinion. Artists aren't a monolith, and for every Lars Ulrich there's an Ignacio Escolar.
posted by Dysk at 8:24 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
People jaywalk.
...
People pirate content.
We all do them. Only the last gets touted here as a right or a "moral imperative". Yeah, tear down capitalism, one stolen show at a time. ¡Viva la Revolución!
No one thinks piracy is going to cause the overthrow of capital. But once you are on board with overthrowing capital, there is very little reason not to engage in piracy, and a lot of good reasons to do so,.
Also jay walking is a moral imperative. Pedestrians, take back the streets!
posted by The Manwich Horror at 8:25 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
(Shit, I'd somehow blanked on the jaywalking in my outrage that anyone would think that everybody fiddles their taxes - jaywalking is definitely a moral imperative: reclaim streets from cars!)
posted by Dysk at 8:38 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:38 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
The artist whose opinion you link to is effectively saying that streaming is just as bad as piracy.
Not exactly; she's saying that streaming music is the best example of how the business being transacted is data exchange - your personal data for some free/low-cost tunes. It still devalues the artistic work and underpays the artists. She laments that most artists have surrendered to this low- or no-paying recording distribution model, and look instead to other opportunities (eg live, sessions, film/TV composing) for revenue.
Escolar is of course free to do what he likes with HIS music. That's the point. It's theirs to distribute as they see fit, not ours to steal.
Also jay walking is a moral imperative.
As a cyclist I'd say... not so much, please.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:41 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Not exactly; she's saying that streaming music is the best example of how the business being transacted is data exchange - your personal data for some free/low-cost tunes. It still devalues the artistic work and underpays the artists. She laments that most artists have surrendered to this low- or no-paying recording distribution model, and look instead to other opportunities (eg live, sessions, film/TV composing) for revenue.
Escolar is of course free to do what he likes with HIS music. That's the point. It's theirs to distribute as they see fit, not ours to steal.
Also jay walking is a moral imperative.
As a cyclist I'd say... not so much, please.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:41 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
That's the point. It's theirs to distribute as they see fit, not ours to steal.
It really isn't for anyone with a label deal. This is why it was quite common for artists to 'leak' their albums to TPB or private torrent trackers back when they were popular.
posted by Dysk at 8:44 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
It really isn't for anyone with a label deal. This is why it was quite common for artists to 'leak' their albums to TPB or private torrent trackers back when they were popular.
posted by Dysk at 8:44 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Imdont know how much a DVD player costs, but The Pirate Bay seems to be free, still...
posted by signal at 8:57 AM on February 15
posted by signal at 8:57 AM on February 15
Yeah, jaywalking is the worst possible counter example, as it's a bullshit "crime" invented to protect the interests of the moneyed classes.
posted by signal at 8:58 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
posted by signal at 8:58 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
This thread reminds me that Dominic Toretto originally became the people's hero by stealing DVD combo players like a digital Robin Hood.
posted by Uncle Ira at 9:40 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by Uncle Ira at 9:40 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
can we please stop assuming any of this is simple, or even merely complicated? What it is, is the definition of complex and to argue otherwise feels at best a case of emotion trumping rationality. I don't care which side yrrr on.
That said, here's a simple maxim, overheard years ago in a rather heated "discussion" similar to this one:
"You know the one thing that people will always pay for? Stuff they NEED that they can't somehow get for free. Everything else exists at the WANT level (or desire if you prefer two syllables)." And then things sidetracked (thankfully) for a while when folks realized that some people think desire is actually a three syllable word.
posted by philip-random at 10:04 AM on February 15
That said, here's a simple maxim, overheard years ago in a rather heated "discussion" similar to this one:
"You know the one thing that people will always pay for? Stuff they NEED that they can't somehow get for free. Everything else exists at the WANT level (or desire if you prefer two syllables)." And then things sidetracked (thankfully) for a while when folks realized that some people think desire is actually a three syllable word.
posted by philip-random at 10:04 AM on February 15
What does that mean?
posted by signal at 10:33 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by signal at 10:33 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
some say "de-sire"
others more of a "de-si-re"
don't they?
posted by philip-random at 11:23 AM on February 15
others more of a "de-si-re"
don't they?
posted by philip-random at 11:23 AM on February 15
I decided to re-watch Person of Interest before the Amazon ad tier came in and it was on FreeVee. So a couple of minutes of ads during each episode.
Then Amazon brought in the ad tier and as I was already watching stuff with ads I didn't buy it.
The ads on Person of Interest then disappeared.
Umm, thanks Amazon.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by fullerine at 12:20 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Then Amazon brought in the ad tier and as I was already watching stuff with ads I didn't buy it.
The ads on Person of Interest then disappeared.
Umm, thanks Amazon.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by fullerine at 12:20 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Try this: pick a person whose work you enjoy and see if they’re even on Patreon. For example, we were talking about Rings of Power. None of the actors I checked are on Patreon so I’m comfortable saying you’re not paying that way if you pirate their work. That’s also why I mentioned the rest of the crew: there’s direct income lost for the people who won’t get residuals but also the future income for the business they won’t get it their project is cancelled, and none of them are getting any significant income from Patreon. Yes, cancellations happen for many reasons but again I go back to the basic principle that if someone’s work improves your life you have an obligation to consume it on their terms.let’s be honest here, statistically none of the people who say “the artist could have a Patreon” ever even look, and they’re certainly not going to back the camera team or someone’s editor).Do you have those supposed statistics to hand, by any chance?
And like, the bit about editors and camerapeople is just weird - they get paid by the artist at the time of production, exactly the same as in any other traditional payment setup.
For the broader issue, yes, there are people in poverty who live in areas with limited services but does anyone seriously think that anywhere near a majority of the people pirating content are in extreme poverty? I’m not going to condemn people who live somewhere without decent public services and more than I’d expect or support theft of service charges for a homeless person who sneaks in to a coffee shop to use a bathroom but I’ve seen so many of these debates where people I knew were financially stable were trying to use that rationale to excuse their own unforced choices.
More than a few lifetimes' worth? I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic, you sincerely believe this, or if you just don't watch enough media to understand what you're talking about.This is a great example of the sense of entitlement: having taste is perfectly normal but it doesn’t somehow nullify the need to get consent to use someone’s work. There are people who can’t afford a few dollars a month – I used to be related to one of them – but there are relatively few of them who have a computer, unmetered internet, and a VPN but also cannot find a single book or video at their library, anything on TV or YouTube, nothing in the Creative Commons or public media, ad supported, etc. which they can find entertaining. There are orders of magnitude more people who like watching things they could but choose not to pay for, and that’s a life choice they can make but we don’t need to pretend that’s morally more sophisticated than it actually is.
When people watch media, they're not just the stereotype of vacant faces idly clicking through channels to watch 'whatever is on'. They have tastes and preferences for certain genres, and also for certain levels of quality. And those are reasonable preferences. People who enjoy watching science fiction, for example, should not be forced to watch reality television just because it's on and it's free.
posted by adamsc at 12:22 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
(Nobody here is in extreme poverty, nobody relevant to this discussion is in extreme poverty. Being on an incredibly restrictive income like disability or unemployment is certainly poverty, but it is not extreme poverty.)
Right, so you're saying that piracy is wrong and bad because, while some piracy is not actually wrong and bad, a lot of the rest is?
Those of us who can't afford access to culture by paying can only access it via piracy because there is an infrastructure for it, which only exists because of the participation of people who can afford infrastructure to facilitate it.
Also, the argument is that there isn't enough wealth transfer from people on the breadline to multibillion dollar companies like Amazon? If the actors and camera crew aren't being paid right, I feel like there is a much more proximate actor causing it, that could easily rectify that...
posted by Dysk at 12:57 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Right, so you're saying that piracy is wrong and bad because, while some piracy is not actually wrong and bad, a lot of the rest is?
Those of us who can't afford access to culture by paying can only access it via piracy because there is an infrastructure for it, which only exists because of the participation of people who can afford infrastructure to facilitate it.
Also, the argument is that there isn't enough wealth transfer from people on the breadline to multibillion dollar companies like Amazon? If the actors and camera crew aren't being paid right, I feel like there is a much more proximate actor causing it, that could easily rectify that...
posted by Dysk at 12:57 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Piracy is wrong and bad within the economic and political framework in which we exist.
Of course, some people think that the economic and political framework we live in is wrong and bad. "Playing the game" and making money to live is entirely understandable and justified from an individual perspective, but it has the outcome of perpetuating the deeply immoral, unjust framework that controls our lives.
For me, a just and moral society wouldn't require the perpetual rent-seeking, gatekeeping, and manipulation that is "playing the game." Thus choosing to live as if the status quo intellectual property regime is invalid is the only moral choice. It seems like accepting that the way society works is wrong leads to more interesting questions such as "how would the allocation of capital to produce massive collaborative works happen if everyone was guaranteed a stable life with access to the resources they need to exploit the wealth of humanity's collective knowledge and achievements?" We'd probably be a lot nicer to each other (and Rings of Power wouldn't suck). Plausibly, the mercenary archivists known as pirates (scary!) would be revered in such a system.
Well-organized, non-economically motivated piracy gave us treasure troves of highly organized, well documented, and exhaustive archives of best-quality media like Oink's Pink Palace (RIP). Truly-open access to information through resources like Scihub (rip?) or Anna's Archive represent some of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the internet. Amazon gives us easy access to low-quality, fraudulent, dangerous merchandise and people wandering through cavernous dystopian hellscape warehouses, pissing in bottles on the edge of heat stroke for a chance at one day having decent healthcare access, maybe.
If being wrong means rejecting those things, I don't want to be right.
posted by polyhedron at 1:45 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
Of course, some people think that the economic and political framework we live in is wrong and bad. "Playing the game" and making money to live is entirely understandable and justified from an individual perspective, but it has the outcome of perpetuating the deeply immoral, unjust framework that controls our lives.
For me, a just and moral society wouldn't require the perpetual rent-seeking, gatekeeping, and manipulation that is "playing the game." Thus choosing to live as if the status quo intellectual property regime is invalid is the only moral choice. It seems like accepting that the way society works is wrong leads to more interesting questions such as "how would the allocation of capital to produce massive collaborative works happen if everyone was guaranteed a stable life with access to the resources they need to exploit the wealth of humanity's collective knowledge and achievements?" We'd probably be a lot nicer to each other (and Rings of Power wouldn't suck). Plausibly, the mercenary archivists known as pirates (scary!) would be revered in such a system.
Well-organized, non-economically motivated piracy gave us treasure troves of highly organized, well documented, and exhaustive archives of best-quality media like Oink's Pink Palace (RIP). Truly-open access to information through resources like Scihub (rip?) or Anna's Archive represent some of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the internet. Amazon gives us easy access to low-quality, fraudulent, dangerous merchandise and people wandering through cavernous dystopian hellscape warehouses, pissing in bottles on the edge of heat stroke for a chance at one day having decent healthcare access, maybe.
If being wrong means rejecting those things, I don't want to be right.
posted by polyhedron at 1:45 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
The back and forth is interesting, but that is a specifically incorrect way to use the word "statistically."
Counterpoint on the morality front, anytime you purchase from a publicly traded company you are financing and empowering said capital to further monopolize not only creators in the future, but labor markets locally and nationally. (to say nothing of all the other countless vectors of horror precipitated by said entities).
In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Something something, ethical consumption under capitalism.
posted by CPAnarchist at 1:49 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Counterpoint on the morality front, anytime you purchase from a publicly traded company you are financing and empowering said capital to further monopolize not only creators in the future, but labor markets locally and nationally. (to say nothing of all the other countless vectors of horror precipitated by said entities).
In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Something something, ethical consumption under capitalism.
posted by CPAnarchist at 1:49 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
For example, we were talking about Rings of Power. None of the actors I checked are on Patreon so I’m comfortable saying you’re not paying that way if you pirate their work.
Obviously those creators won't be. But other creators are. If you have a limited budget for entertainment, and your goal os to support creators, Patreon or direct donations will do more good than buying product from a corporation. Once you have spent that budget, whether or not you watch things you can't pay for has no impact one way or the other.
This is a great example of the sense of entitlement: having taste is perfectly normal but it doesn’t somehow nullify the need to get consent to use someone’s work.
I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe that any consent is required. I wouldn't condemn anyone for stealing a DVD from Walmart. Why would I condemn them for stealing data from Amazon?
posted by The Manwich Horror at 2:10 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Obviously those creators won't be. But other creators are. If you have a limited budget for entertainment, and your goal os to support creators, Patreon or direct donations will do more good than buying product from a corporation. Once you have spent that budget, whether or not you watch things you can't pay for has no impact one way or the other.
This is a great example of the sense of entitlement: having taste is perfectly normal but it doesn’t somehow nullify the need to get consent to use someone’s work.
I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe that any consent is required. I wouldn't condemn anyone for stealing a DVD from Walmart. Why would I condemn them for stealing data from Amazon?
posted by The Manwich Horror at 2:10 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
The ads on Person of Interest then disappeared.
The Machine is your friend!
posted by mikelieman at 2:20 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
The Machine is your friend!
posted by mikelieman at 2:20 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
I’ve seen so many of these debates where people I knew were financially stable were trying to use that rationale to excuse their own unforced choices.
Man oh man, we live in different worlds.
Dude, I myself am not financially stable. No one I associate with, with the exception of people I meet but do not hang out with at law school, is financially stable. (You’re going to say, I can feel it, “but you’re in law school, you must be financially stable”. I’m going to cackle hysterically, point out that I don’t pay that tuition and that it is literally just this week that I found out that I wouldn’t be homeless next year). The economy is absolutely trash right now; I submit that the amount of people you know who are financially stable is far, far smaller than you think it is. It’s not like a ton of people just have all this money and are just pirating for fun, because it’s hard and inconvenient to do so. No, things cost fucking absurd prices while wages aren’t at the level that they are affordable. And there’s no way to buy used streaming services. Everything is the new price, forever.
But “unforced choices”? “Unforced choices”, like the bus fare/gas money to visit a library? Also what TV? TV basically doesn’t exist anymore. It’s not like it used to be where you could grab a shitty old grey and white box and fuck with the rabbit ears. That shit needs connection. Connection means money. YouTube? You mean, the algorithm funnels that are driving people into militia factories? That’s where you want people to go?
None of this shit you think is free is free. Everything has major costs. It’s just that for some reason you think that not paying companies is the most horrifying of them.
posted by corb at 2:48 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
Man oh man, we live in different worlds.
Dude, I myself am not financially stable. No one I associate with, with the exception of people I meet but do not hang out with at law school, is financially stable. (You’re going to say, I can feel it, “but you’re in law school, you must be financially stable”. I’m going to cackle hysterically, point out that I don’t pay that tuition and that it is literally just this week that I found out that I wouldn’t be homeless next year). The economy is absolutely trash right now; I submit that the amount of people you know who are financially stable is far, far smaller than you think it is. It’s not like a ton of people just have all this money and are just pirating for fun, because it’s hard and inconvenient to do so. No, things cost fucking absurd prices while wages aren’t at the level that they are affordable. And there’s no way to buy used streaming services. Everything is the new price, forever.
But “unforced choices”? “Unforced choices”, like the bus fare/gas money to visit a library? Also what TV? TV basically doesn’t exist anymore. It’s not like it used to be where you could grab a shitty old grey and white box and fuck with the rabbit ears. That shit needs connection. Connection means money. YouTube? You mean, the algorithm funnels that are driving people into militia factories? That’s where you want people to go?
None of this shit you think is free is free. Everything has major costs. It’s just that for some reason you think that not paying companies is the most horrifying of them.
posted by corb at 2:48 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
I maintain a subscription to Netflix solely to avoid ads interrupting my entertainment and watch almost nothing on free-to-air TV for that reason. I would cancel it in a heartbeat if Netflix ever introduced ads into that entertainment.
It makes me sad that so many people think the obvious reaction to a streaming service changing its delivery model is to clog up the court system with lawsuits that will inevitably have absolutely no impact on anyone involved. The only way to influence a service provider towards making their service more like what people want is to stop fucking giving them money until they do! Don't like ads on Prime Video? Unsubscribe.
I do get that some people paid for a year in advance and are angry that the service changed during that period. I'm pretty sure that's in accordance with the agreement those people entered into by accepting the terms and conditions. Is Amazon's action shitty? Absolutely, but who would expect anything else?
posted by dg at 4:30 PM on February 15
It makes me sad that so many people think the obvious reaction to a streaming service changing its delivery model is to clog up the court system with lawsuits that will inevitably have absolutely no impact on anyone involved. The only way to influence a service provider towards making their service more like what people want is to stop fucking giving them money until they do! Don't like ads on Prime Video? Unsubscribe.
I do get that some people paid for a year in advance and are angry that the service changed during that period. I'm pretty sure that's in accordance with the agreement those people entered into by accepting the terms and conditions. Is Amazon's action shitty? Absolutely, but who would expect anything else?
posted by dg at 4:30 PM on February 15
On reflection, I wonder if Amazon's de facto price hike isn't savvier than it looks. I said something to the effect of "oh fuck you" when I received the email about the price hike, but not because I intended not to pay it; I knew damn well I would pay it, because I hate ads and I watch Prime more than any other streaming service. If they made ad-free Prime $30 a month, I would probably pay it, but -- and here's the thing -- I would probably take a much harder look at what other streaming services I also pay for and ask myself which one(s) would go, in order to make up the difference.
Amazon is a profoundly anti-competitive company, fond of buying up services that offer similar wares to their own and then turning them to shit when the competition is gone. (See Comixology and Audible.) Raising the price for access to their enormous catalog could, in a roundabout way, actually be very damaging to nichier streamers without as much stuff to offer.
Once the competition is sufficiently crushed, will Prime become worse? Judging from Amazon's track record, yes, definitely. The no-ads option may go away (or become exponentially more expensive), the catalog may become worse, the video quality may suffer, and if any of this sounds unlikely you're probably not someone who's been reading comics on Comixology for over a decade. It's a drag, but generally Amazon's strategy is first to conquer, and then to suck ass.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:44 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Amazon is a profoundly anti-competitive company, fond of buying up services that offer similar wares to their own and then turning them to shit when the competition is gone. (See Comixology and Audible.) Raising the price for access to their enormous catalog could, in a roundabout way, actually be very damaging to nichier streamers without as much stuff to offer.
Once the competition is sufficiently crushed, will Prime become worse? Judging from Amazon's track record, yes, definitely. The no-ads option may go away (or become exponentially more expensive), the catalog may become worse, the video quality may suffer, and if any of this sounds unlikely you're probably not someone who's been reading comics on Comixology for over a decade. It's a drag, but generally Amazon's strategy is first to conquer, and then to suck ass.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:44 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
But “unforced choices”? “Unforced choices”, like the bus fare/gas money to visit a library?I don’t know about you but not having bus / gas money sounds pretty forced to me. When I described the people in question as financially stable I was specifically intending to exclude someone for whom $5-15/month is a notable expense because I’ve seen so many people who are not poor write lengthy treatises trying to justify a position which is essentially “I am unwilling to pay one beer/month for the hours of entertainment I consume”. If you are in fact on that tight of a budget, I’m not aware of any definition of financial stability which includes you.
Also what TV? TV basically doesn’t exist anymore. It’s not like it used to be where you could grab a shitty old grey and white box and fuck with the rabbit ears. That shit needs connection.Over 90% of U.S. households have digital TV coverage and a digital TV antenna (the flat flaps which replaced rabbit ears in the 2000s) costs $15. If you haven’t used it, the quality is quite good - our PBS affiliate has full 1080p movies and concerts, for example.
YouTube? You mean, the algorithm funnels that are driving people into militia factories? That’s where you want people to go?I don’t love Google either, but there is an awful lot of video there which is not by “militia factories” and costs nothing to view. Given that Amazon has a lot of right-wing stuff, too, I’m not sure I could make some argument for the moral purity of either massive corporation which would exclude only one of them.
None of this shit you think is free is free.Perhaps you should phrase this as “I don’t like any of the content I can get for free”. That’s a perfectly valid position.
Everything has major costs. It’s just that for some reason you think that not paying companies is the most horrifying of them.That’s a strawman. My position continues to be “don’t pay companies you don’t like and also don’t reinforce their cultural power”. Poverty is a far more serious problem, but bootlegging isn’t addressing that in any meaningful way and the attempts to portray it as a moral stance more sophisticated than “nobody’s going to stop me” aren’t very convincing.
posted by adamsc at 6:04 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Poverty is a far more serious problem, but bootlegging isn’t addressing that in any meaningful
It doesn't address poverty, but it can make it a bit more bearable.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:40 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
It doesn't address poverty, but it can make it a bit more bearable.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 6:40 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
It doesn't address poverty, but it can make it a bit more bearable.Okay, fine. If you’re faced with the choice of eating or paying Netflix, nobody’s going to see anything. The other 99% of people who pirate are just devaluing artists. Just as we don’t bless the ML companies doing that, we don’t need to pretend this is a good thing for them either.
posted by adamsc at 8:59 AM on February 16
If you’re faced with the choice of eating or paying Netflix, nobody’s going to see anything. The other 99% of people who pirate are just devaluing artists
I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't think this is as rare as you think it is these days. I think there's this idea of people in "extreme poverty" as the people who have to budget for the 20$ regular expense in their monthly budget, and those people being rare enough that they are - as you put it - 1% of the population you're talking about.
But people who don't have enough financial stability that they can confidently expect that there will never be a time when their bank account is less than 20$ are actually a much higher percentage of the population. In fact, 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, described for the purposes of the study as "an individual or family’s income barely covers essential living expenses like housing, utilities, groceries and transportation", with 29% reporting that their income doesn't *even* cover their standard necessary expenses.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people in America are not financially stable. In fact, maybe 22% of the entire population is financially stable. So in any given room, the likelihood that most of the people talking are financially stable is not high.
It's clear that you really value artists. But false information about how well people are doing in America isn't going to help a single one do better. Helping people do better might.
posted by corb at 9:56 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't think this is as rare as you think it is these days. I think there's this idea of people in "extreme poverty" as the people who have to budget for the 20$ regular expense in their monthly budget, and those people being rare enough that they are - as you put it - 1% of the population you're talking about.
But people who don't have enough financial stability that they can confidently expect that there will never be a time when their bank account is less than 20$ are actually a much higher percentage of the population. In fact, 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, described for the purposes of the study as "an individual or family’s income barely covers essential living expenses like housing, utilities, groceries and transportation", with 29% reporting that their income doesn't *even* cover their standard necessary expenses.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people in America are not financially stable. In fact, maybe 22% of the entire population is financially stable. So in any given room, the likelihood that most of the people talking are financially stable is not high.
It's clear that you really value artists. But false information about how well people are doing in America isn't going to help a single one do better. Helping people do better might.
posted by corb at 9:56 AM on February 16 [9 favorites]
I think there's this idea of people in "extreme poverty" as the people who have to budget for the 20$ regular expense in their monthly budget
This description isn't extreme poverty by pretty much any definition - I don't know why the term keeps coming up here, it isn't particularly relevant to the conversation. We're talking about people in poverty, but not extreme poverty.
posted by Dysk at 10:51 AM on February 16
This description isn't extreme poverty by pretty much any definition - I don't know why the term keeps coming up here, it isn't particularly relevant to the conversation. We're talking about people in poverty, but not extreme poverty.
posted by Dysk at 10:51 AM on February 16
It makes me sad that so many people think the obvious reaction to a streaming service changing its delivery model is to clog up the court system with lawsuits that will inevitably have absolutely no impact on anyone involved.
What? You pay $150 (or whatever it is now) in advance for a year of a service described to you in a certain way, and halfway through the company comes back to tell you, "Oh, yeah, if you don't want to experience this unquestioned degradation of service, you have to cough up an additional $3/mo. for the remainder of your term you already paid for," and you get sad because...people are suing the company? You think that's a waste of resources?
Is Amazon's action shitty? Absolutely, but who would expect anything else?
You don't have to cringe like a beaten cur before the boot of capitalism, not even Amazon. Maybe they can take your money, but they can't take your self-respect unless you hand it over to them.
posted by praemunire at 11:33 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
What? You pay $150 (or whatever it is now) in advance for a year of a service described to you in a certain way, and halfway through the company comes back to tell you, "Oh, yeah, if you don't want to experience this unquestioned degradation of service, you have to cough up an additional $3/mo. for the remainder of your term you already paid for," and you get sad because...people are suing the company? You think that's a waste of resources?
Is Amazon's action shitty? Absolutely, but who would expect anything else?
You don't have to cringe like a beaten cur before the boot of capitalism, not even Amazon. Maybe they can take your money, but they can't take your self-respect unless you hand it over to them.
posted by praemunire at 11:33 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
99% of people who pirate are just devaluing artists
Pretty sure said people are not in a direct, transactional relationship with said artists, and proselytizing the morality of a legal and regulatory environment rooted and developed with arguably the absolute sickest understanding of ownership over land, property, and labor the human race has seen is a weird way to spend one's free time. It's also discrediting of any attempt at a moral argument. Full stop.
Sell your work to a global vampire (which is understandable if you need to subsist), understand that said global vampire will still be treated like a global vampire. Thems the breaks.
posted by CPAnarchist at 11:55 AM on February 16 [7 favorites]
Pretty sure said people are not in a direct, transactional relationship with said artists, and proselytizing the morality of a legal and regulatory environment rooted and developed with arguably the absolute sickest understanding of ownership over land, property, and labor the human race has seen is a weird way to spend one's free time. It's also discrediting of any attempt at a moral argument. Full stop.
Sell your work to a global vampire (which is understandable if you need to subsist), understand that said global vampire will still be treated like a global vampire. Thems the breaks.
posted by CPAnarchist at 11:55 AM on February 16 [7 favorites]
Okay, fine. If you’re faced with the choice of eating or paying Netflix, nobody’s going to see anything. The other 99% of people who pirate are just devaluing artists.
it's not about eating/or, it is about living tight enough financially that pretty much every available dollar goes to something. So for every ten dollars I don't give Netflix, I've got ten more to buy a used book from that guy that sets up in the park nearby, or buy some tracks from that band I've streaming on Bandcamp, or an actual CD from that band I saw the other night. Or maybe I just tip better at local restaurants.
posted by philip-random at 12:14 PM on February 16 [2 favorites]
it's not about eating/or, it is about living tight enough financially that pretty much every available dollar goes to something. So for every ten dollars I don't give Netflix, I've got ten more to buy a used book from that guy that sets up in the park nearby, or buy some tracks from that band I've streaming on Bandcamp, or an actual CD from that band I saw the other night. Or maybe I just tip better at local restaurants.
posted by philip-random at 12:14 PM on February 16 [2 favorites]
Why not just substitute the book or the band for global vampire media property?
posted by Selena777 at 12:27 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 12:27 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
I used to pirate a ton of video games when I was a kid because I didn’t have any money and lived in the sticks. Then I got a job and steam, gog and itch came out and now it’s been years since I pirated a game. The last time was a game that’s no longer sold for a console I don’t own that’s also no longer sold.
If pirating games had been impossible or against my morals I wouldn’t have spent more money on games, I didn’t have any. Instead I probably would have dropped it as a hobby completely.
That’s kind of where I am with series and movies, the experience is just too shitty. If I need some mindless entertainment I go on youtube. God knows that has it’s own problems, but at least it spits out endless content for 10 bucks a month with no ads and no hassle.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 12:46 PM on February 16 [2 favorites]
If pirating games had been impossible or against my morals I wouldn’t have spent more money on games, I didn’t have any. Instead I probably would have dropped it as a hobby completely.
That’s kind of where I am with series and movies, the experience is just too shitty. If I need some mindless entertainment I go on youtube. God knows that has it’s own problems, but at least it spits out endless content for 10 bucks a month with no ads and no hassle.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 12:46 PM on February 16 [2 favorites]
it's not about eating/or, it is about living tight enough financially that pretty much every available dollar goes to something. So for every ten dollars I don't give Netflix, I've got ten more to buy a used book from that guy that sets up in the park nearby, or buy some tracks from that band I've streaming on Bandcamp, or an actual CD from that band I saw the other night. Or maybe I just tip better at local restaurants.
That sounds great. My point is simply that you can continue not helping the company you dislike entrench its cultural power. Spending your money on independent artists is great. Spending your time talking about their work is even better, since it doesn’t tell the people around that they should be spending time on that company’s work rather than the independent artists’.
And, yes, pirating is devaluing artwork: once you say it’s okay to use one artist’s work without their consent, it’s highly unlikely that you won’t find reasons to do that for everyone else. If you don’t care, say that but at least be honest about what you’re doing.
posted by adamsc at 5:24 PM on February 16
And, yes, pirating is devaluing artwork: once you say it’s okay to use one artist’s work without their consent,
What I find interesting in this approach is how passionately you are fantasizing some kind of direct and almost personal relationship between consumer and creator, when in fact, in most cases, virtually all the money goes to some kind of appalling parasitical corporation and "consent for use" is a meaningless concept. We're not peers engaging in a free exchange of money and service. We're both downtrodden groups in the system, and not resisting the system is going to confer virtually no benefit on the creator-group.
There are other reasons not to be enthusiastic about piracy, like general belief in the value of the rule of law. But if you think you're standing up for the rights of the little guy when he gets $0.00034 for every play and Amazon gets $3 (or for general ideas of "consent"), you're mistaken.
posted by praemunire at 6:58 PM on February 16 [6 favorites]
What I find interesting in this approach is how passionately you are fantasizing some kind of direct and almost personal relationship between consumer and creator, when in fact, in most cases, virtually all the money goes to some kind of appalling parasitical corporation and "consent for use" is a meaningless concept. We're not peers engaging in a free exchange of money and service. We're both downtrodden groups in the system, and not resisting the system is going to confer virtually no benefit on the creator-group.
There are other reasons not to be enthusiastic about piracy, like general belief in the value of the rule of law. But if you think you're standing up for the rights of the little guy when he gets $0.00034 for every play and Amazon gets $3 (or for general ideas of "consent"), you're mistaken.
posted by praemunire at 6:58 PM on February 16 [6 favorites]
So we've made it into a game to search for completely random stuff on Amazon just to screw with the ads that come on. Privacy through obsfucation! And I say that as a Spanish speaking RV-owner that needs new bedding and a battery charger for the '91 Celica I tow behind the rig.
Alexa, play "Oye Como Selenium Ad Fuzzer Va"
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:06 AM on February 17 [1 favorite]
Alexa, play "Oye Como Selenium Ad Fuzzer Va"
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:06 AM on February 17 [1 favorite]
What? You pay $150 (or whatever it is now) in advance for a year of a service described to you in a certain way, and halfway through the company comes back to tell you, "Oh, yeah, if you don't want to experience this unquestioned degradation of service, you have to cough up an additional $3/mo. for the remainder of your term you already paid for," and you get sad because...people are suing the company? You think that's a waste of resources?
I haven't read the exact conditions/terms of use for this specific product, but I'd bet a middling amount of money those terms include a clause that everyone signing up agrees to saying the cost and or the service itself may change at any time and you agree in advance to such changes. Whether or not you actually read the agreement you willingly entered into isn't the point - you agreed to pretty much any and all shitty treatment before you even got to access the product.
Yes, I think it's a waste of public resources for individuals to be suing a company over, at the absolute most, thirty-five fucking dollars and eighty-eight fucking cents after they agreed in advance to accept the company's actions!
Yes, I also think the terms of use for pretty much any digital product are insane and nobody ever reads them. Where the law could usefully be involved here would be to create enforceable laws that require plain-language terms and conditions no more than a page long rather than using taxpayer funds to try and punish a company for doing something the company said they were going to before the individual even signed up for the product.
Every time you sign up for a product like Amazon Prime, you willingly agree to cringe before capitalism and hand them your self-respect on a plate. Maybe it doesn't feel like that if you don't read what you are agreeing to, I guess.
posted by dg at 4:03 PM on February 18
I haven't read the exact conditions/terms of use for this specific product, but I'd bet a middling amount of money those terms include a clause that everyone signing up agrees to saying the cost and or the service itself may change at any time and you agree in advance to such changes. Whether or not you actually read the agreement you willingly entered into isn't the point - you agreed to pretty much any and all shitty treatment before you even got to access the product.
Yes, I think it's a waste of public resources for individuals to be suing a company over, at the absolute most, thirty-five fucking dollars and eighty-eight fucking cents after they agreed in advance to accept the company's actions!
Yes, I also think the terms of use for pretty much any digital product are insane and nobody ever reads them. Where the law could usefully be involved here would be to create enforceable laws that require plain-language terms and conditions no more than a page long rather than using taxpayer funds to try and punish a company for doing something the company said they were going to before the individual even signed up for the product.
Every time you sign up for a product like Amazon Prime, you willingly agree to cringe before capitalism and hand them your self-respect on a plate. Maybe it doesn't feel like that if you don't read what you are agreeing to, I guess.
posted by dg at 4:03 PM on February 18
IANAL but if a click-through EULA absolves me of all responsibility to provide the service I have been explicitly advertising, then the law is broken, and I'm sure the law isn't that broken, even in the US.
Like, I can't run a service where you pay me for a year's worth of movie 5 streaming, but due to a EULA clause I can change the terms and conditions with no notice, so I'll just stop providing you the service altogether after the first day, pocketing the money for the remaining 364 of your subscription.
Because if there are no limits to how much I can unilaterally change the deal, why stop there? I've changed the terms and conditions of our contract after you've paid me for a year so that I no longer provide any services, and you owe me another ten thousand dollars. Sorry, you signed a thing that says I can change the TOS!
It obviously doesn't work that way right? There are limits to how much you flexibility a click through actually buys you. To accept that Amazon can just make this change unilaterally is to concede that the original contract is utterly meaningless, excepting the "we can change shit" clause. Otherwise, you'd see shadier outfits pull this (and worse) constantly.
posted by Dysk at 10:50 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]
Like, I can't run a service where you pay me for a year's worth of movie 5 streaming, but due to a EULA clause I can change the terms and conditions with no notice, so I'll just stop providing you the service altogether after the first day, pocketing the money for the remaining 364 of your subscription.
Because if there are no limits to how much I can unilaterally change the deal, why stop there? I've changed the terms and conditions of our contract after you've paid me for a year so that I no longer provide any services, and you owe me another ten thousand dollars. Sorry, you signed a thing that says I can change the TOS!
It obviously doesn't work that way right? There are limits to how much you flexibility a click through actually buys you. To accept that Amazon can just make this change unilaterally is to concede that the original contract is utterly meaningless, excepting the "we can change shit" clause. Otherwise, you'd see shadier outfits pull this (and worse) constantly.
posted by Dysk at 10:50 PM on February 18 [2 favorites]
IANAL either, but I never stated there is unlimited scope to make changes and we're not talking about any of the scenarios you propose - we're talking about a ~2% increase in the price of a product. Yes, it's shitty behaviour when they could have imposed the increase on renewal or something, but does it justify the use of public resources and the clogging up of courts? Not in my view it doesn't. Not when you're talking about a maximum possible damage to any individual of $35.88. Plus some hurt feelings, I suppose.
posted by dg at 3:30 PM on February 20
posted by dg at 3:30 PM on February 20
20% increase, not 2%. It's $3/mo more on top of $15/mo.
A key part of a functioning capitalist market is that contracts and services are regulated and consumers have some protection provided by courts and government. This lawsuit is one example of that protection. It's not "clogging up the courts", it's what the courts are for.
posted by Nelson at 3:57 PM on February 20 [5 favorites]
A key part of a functioning capitalist market is that contracts and services are regulated and consumers have some protection provided by courts and government. This lawsuit is one example of that protection. It's not "clogging up the courts", it's what the courts are for.
posted by Nelson at 3:57 PM on February 20 [5 favorites]
Is this what's "clogging up" the courts?
Not when you're talking about a maximum possible damage to any individual of $35.88.
For all the opprobrium about people "stealing" things by pirating, where actual losses incurred are hypothetical, why not some opprobrium for companies taking actual money away from people for a benefit those people already paid for? Should all the services you pay for really be able to just take away things you've already paid for? Should all the contracts you sign operate this way? Is that the legal environment you want to be living in?
Ideally, regulatory agencies would crack down on these things so people wouldn't have to waste their own time and energy suing. But they don't seem to be, and in the absence of any deterrent why would an amoral company not just take whatever it can, whenever possible? If courts were to decide this move of Amazon's is A-OK (unlikely, right? because Amazon's pretty clearly in the wrong), why wouldn't any other company selling services or access in advance pull similar moves?
Instead of being mad at the people behind this and similar lawsuits, I'm glad someone is putting in the energy and resources that I don't have - it's not nearly enough, but it's better than no pushback at all. And if I were to be annoyed about anyone "clogging up" courts and public resources, I'd rather be annoyed with the tax-dodging workforce-abusing $1.73 trillion net worth company that decided to skim a bit more from its customers, when they almost certainly expected a lawsuit, did the math in advance, and decided it was unlikely to cost more than the profits from this move, so why not go ahead with it. Be mad at all the corporations lobbying against more active regulation, and at all the lobbying against government spending towards a court system with the bandwidth to serve its purpose.
Also if $35.88 is trivial money to you then feel free to send me a gift certificate for that amount; or at least go donate it to someone. Don't make assumptions about what money means to other people.
posted by trig at 4:03 PM on February 20 [6 favorites]
Not when you're talking about a maximum possible damage to any individual of $35.88.
For all the opprobrium about people "stealing" things by pirating, where actual losses incurred are hypothetical, why not some opprobrium for companies taking actual money away from people for a benefit those people already paid for? Should all the services you pay for really be able to just take away things you've already paid for? Should all the contracts you sign operate this way? Is that the legal environment you want to be living in?
Ideally, regulatory agencies would crack down on these things so people wouldn't have to waste their own time and energy suing. But they don't seem to be, and in the absence of any deterrent why would an amoral company not just take whatever it can, whenever possible? If courts were to decide this move of Amazon's is A-OK (unlikely, right? because Amazon's pretty clearly in the wrong), why wouldn't any other company selling services or access in advance pull similar moves?
Instead of being mad at the people behind this and similar lawsuits, I'm glad someone is putting in the energy and resources that I don't have - it's not nearly enough, but it's better than no pushback at all. And if I were to be annoyed about anyone "clogging up" courts and public resources, I'd rather be annoyed with the tax-dodging workforce-abusing $1.73 trillion net worth company that decided to skim a bit more from its customers, when they almost certainly expected a lawsuit, did the math in advance, and decided it was unlikely to cost more than the profits from this move, so why not go ahead with it. Be mad at all the corporations lobbying against more active regulation, and at all the lobbying against government spending towards a court system with the bandwidth to serve its purpose.
Also if $35.88 is trivial money to you then feel free to send me a gift certificate for that amount; or at least go donate it to someone. Don't make assumptions about what money means to other people.
posted by trig at 4:03 PM on February 20 [6 favorites]
I made no assumptions about what money means to anyone but, if you need it, what gift certificate do you want?
20% increase, not 2%. It's $3/mo more on top of $15/mo.
Sorry, bad maths on my part. I used the cost the person suing paid ($139 per year) along with the $2.99 extra per month and wrongly calculated the %. I think it's actually 26%.
I can easily manage to be upset at the big corporations that screw all of us over by not paying tax, buying and then destroying the good in everything and treating every human like something they scraped off their shoe and at the same time be annoyed that some of that tax money corporations don't pay is now being siphoned off from the public purse and given to highly-paid lawyers by a lawsuit over a total injury of $35.88. I get that people feel the only way to get some kind of justice is a lawsuit but there's no justice to be had in the law, no matter where you live. The cost of this lawsuit to Amazon doesn't even rate a mention in their accounts and they don't give a single fuck whether they win or lose, because they always win in the end.
The only way to punish a corporation is to stop giving them money. That's the only thing that hurts them. But Amazon knows perfectly well that no sense of injustice is going to stop people sucking at the teat of cheap, shitty consumer products. They (and every other corporation) know they can treat people however they want and the most likely response is 'please sir, can I have some more?'.
posted by dg at 7:24 PM on February 20
20% increase, not 2%. It's $3/mo more on top of $15/mo.
Sorry, bad maths on my part. I used the cost the person suing paid ($139 per year) along with the $2.99 extra per month and wrongly calculated the %. I think it's actually 26%.
I can easily manage to be upset at the big corporations that screw all of us over by not paying tax, buying and then destroying the good in everything and treating every human like something they scraped off their shoe and at the same time be annoyed that some of that tax money corporations don't pay is now being siphoned off from the public purse and given to highly-paid lawyers by a lawsuit over a total injury of $35.88. I get that people feel the only way to get some kind of justice is a lawsuit but there's no justice to be had in the law, no matter where you live. The cost of this lawsuit to Amazon doesn't even rate a mention in their accounts and they don't give a single fuck whether they win or lose, because they always win in the end.
The only way to punish a corporation is to stop giving them money. That's the only thing that hurts them. But Amazon knows perfectly well that no sense of injustice is going to stop people sucking at the teat of cheap, shitty consumer products. They (and every other corporation) know they can treat people however they want and the most likely response is 'please sir, can I have some more?'.
posted by dg at 7:24 PM on February 20
we're talking about a ~2% increase in the price of a product
We're not, we're talking about a fundamental change in the product offered. They advertised "ad free video streaming!" and now changed the deal so it isn't as-free. The fact that there's an upsell is neither here nor there - that can be relevant for the customer's next subscription. They paid for a year in advance, they can't just change what they're offering until the next contract period.
Again, if this allowed, then what's to stop me advertising and then leasing leasing somebody a BMW M3 for ten grand for a year (figures hypothetical) paid up front, then a week after I've taken your ten grand, I come take the car back, and leave you with a Hot Wheels. Sorry, terms of service changed, ignore the fact that what we both agreed got paid for initially was BMW M3 rental. But if you start paying me $200/mo you can have the car you've already paid for back, I guess (until next time I decide to change the ToS).
You can't let them have this because the sums are small. They won't be next time if you do, and then there's precedence that it's fine. You nip that shit in the bud.
The only way to punish a corporation is to stop giving them money.
You don't have that option if you've paid for a year up front. Cancelling only fucks you over, Amazon keep the upfront payment for the whole year.
posted by Dysk at 10:42 PM on February 20 [3 favorites]
We're not, we're talking about a fundamental change in the product offered. They advertised "ad free video streaming!" and now changed the deal so it isn't as-free. The fact that there's an upsell is neither here nor there - that can be relevant for the customer's next subscription. They paid for a year in advance, they can't just change what they're offering until the next contract period.
Again, if this allowed, then what's to stop me advertising and then leasing leasing somebody a BMW M3 for ten grand for a year (figures hypothetical) paid up front, then a week after I've taken your ten grand, I come take the car back, and leave you with a Hot Wheels. Sorry, terms of service changed, ignore the fact that what we both agreed got paid for initially was BMW M3 rental. But if you start paying me $200/mo you can have the car you've already paid for back, I guess (until next time I decide to change the ToS).
You can't let them have this because the sums are small. They won't be next time if you do, and then there's precedence that it's fine. You nip that shit in the bud.
The only way to punish a corporation is to stop giving them money.
You don't have that option if you've paid for a year up front. Cancelling only fucks you over, Amazon keep the upfront payment for the whole year.
posted by Dysk at 10:42 PM on February 20 [3 favorites]
You can still get out of the Prime cycle for future years by canceling.
posted by Selena777 at 8:41 AM on February 21
posted by Selena777 at 8:41 AM on February 21
Which doesn't help you for the next 11 months and three weeks potentially, hence the lawsuit.
posted by Dysk at 1:13 AM on February 22
posted by Dysk at 1:13 AM on February 22
If it’s not considered clogging up the courts to prosecute people for shoplifting 30$ worth of goods from a mega company, I can’t see how it can possibly be clogging up the courts to sue a mega company for stealing 30$ from a person who contracted with it.
posted by corb at 4:54 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:54 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]
Somehow this discussion has missed the point of class action lawsuits. It's not the potential $30 for one plaintiff; it's the possible $30 * 150,000,000 = $4.5B judgment against Amazon that gets attention. The initial suit filed is for $5M but I suspect that's just a placeholder that will get updated once the case gets going once the lawsuit forces Amazon to divulge just how many users are affected by their changing the terms mid-contract.
A class action can be a major penalty for a company. And it sets a precedent that this sort of contract meddling is not OK. Distastefully it's also a big fat payday for the attorney, a sort of bounty, but that's how American courts work.
What will you buy with your personal payout? I might get one of the fancy $6 lattés. Or maybe half a bucket of popcorn at the movie theater.
posted by Nelson at 6:15 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]
A class action can be a major penalty for a company. And it sets a precedent that this sort of contract meddling is not OK. Distastefully it's also a big fat payday for the attorney, a sort of bounty, but that's how American courts work.
What will you buy with your personal payout? I might get one of the fancy $6 lattés. Or maybe half a bucket of popcorn at the movie theater.
posted by Nelson at 6:15 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]
Different legal proceeding but FTC Takes Action Against Amazon for Enrolling Consumers in Amazon Prime Without Consent and Sabotaging Their Attempts to Cancel
posted by Nelson at 7:30 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]
the FTC charges that Amazon has knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in Amazon Prime. Specifically, Amazon used manipulative, coercive, or deceptive user-interface designs known as “dark patterns” to trick consumers into enrolling in automatically-renewing Prime subscriptions.(Note this is the start of a process by the FTC, not a final ruling.)
Amazon also knowingly complicated the cancellation process for Prime subscribers who sought to end their membership. The primary purpose of its Prime cancellation process was not to enable subscribers to cancel, but to stop them. Amazon leadership slowed or rejected changes that would’ve made it easier for users to cancel Prime because those changes adversely affected Amazon’s bottom line.
posted by Nelson at 7:30 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]
I can easily manage to be upset at the big corporations ... and at the same time be annoyed that some of that tax money corporations don't pay is now being siphoned off from the public purse and given to highly-paid lawyers by a lawsuit over a total injury of $35.88. ... The only way to punish a corporation is to stop giving them money.
If we're talking about triviality, I'd say the second reason for annoyance seems pretty trivial compared to the first one. Anyway, I do agree about punishing a business by not giving them your business (I can get pretty frustrated thinking about how Twitter is still somehow a thing that people use) but I also disagree: it's a classic personal responsibility approach to something that should primarily have a regulatory or systemic solution. It's also problematic on a general level because most people, even ones living in areas with lots of options, have at least one or two businesses they interact with that they don't have much choice but to give their money to. So having multiple avenues for pushback against bad business behavior is important.
To be honest, in an ideal world I want something like Amazon to exist, or at least the part with the store with a giant selection that offers quick delivery, low prices, and relatively painless returns (and, if we're dreaming, a crap-product-percentage closer to 2010-Amazon than 2020s-Amazon). Much as I hate to say it, Amazon The Store has been hugely helpful to me as someone with limited mobility on a tight budget; where I live they're often the only way to get something delivered to my actual home at an affordable price. So I want Amazon or similar to exist - I just want it to exist inside a well-enforced regulatory environment that requires that employees be treated fairly, environmental damage be limited, taxes be paid, and yeah, consumer rights be respected and not waived with every click-through agreement.
While most class-action lawsuits might not lead to an enormous amount of change, it's not clear that they've had that much less effect than waiting for people to boycott businesses on principle. I think those are both valid and not even mutually exclusive approaches, and I'll cheer both of them on in the hopes that they'll contribute even a little toward (a) deterring bad corporate behavior and (b) raising awareness and encouraging regulation.
I made no assumptions about what money means to anyone but, if you need it, what gift certificate do you want?
Maybe I misread your references to $35.88, but it seemed like you were describing that as a trivial sum not worth making a stand on, which is an assumption that holds for some people and not for others, right? Anyway, thanks, I guess (and my apologies for putting you on the spot); it would in fact make a difference for me, but not enough that I can't afford to say no on account of awkwardness and pride. So, if it actually is trivial to you, please go ahead and donate it to someone local instead.
posted by trig at 5:03 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
If we're talking about triviality, I'd say the second reason for annoyance seems pretty trivial compared to the first one. Anyway, I do agree about punishing a business by not giving them your business (I can get pretty frustrated thinking about how Twitter is still somehow a thing that people use) but I also disagree: it's a classic personal responsibility approach to something that should primarily have a regulatory or systemic solution. It's also problematic on a general level because most people, even ones living in areas with lots of options, have at least one or two businesses they interact with that they don't have much choice but to give their money to. So having multiple avenues for pushback against bad business behavior is important.
To be honest, in an ideal world I want something like Amazon to exist, or at least the part with the store with a giant selection that offers quick delivery, low prices, and relatively painless returns (and, if we're dreaming, a crap-product-percentage closer to 2010-Amazon than 2020s-Amazon). Much as I hate to say it, Amazon The Store has been hugely helpful to me as someone with limited mobility on a tight budget; where I live they're often the only way to get something delivered to my actual home at an affordable price. So I want Amazon or similar to exist - I just want it to exist inside a well-enforced regulatory environment that requires that employees be treated fairly, environmental damage be limited, taxes be paid, and yeah, consumer rights be respected and not waived with every click-through agreement.
While most class-action lawsuits might not lead to an enormous amount of change, it's not clear that they've had that much less effect than waiting for people to boycott businesses on principle. I think those are both valid and not even mutually exclusive approaches, and I'll cheer both of them on in the hopes that they'll contribute even a little toward (a) deterring bad corporate behavior and (b) raising awareness and encouraging regulation.
I made no assumptions about what money means to anyone but, if you need it, what gift certificate do you want?
Maybe I misread your references to $35.88, but it seemed like you were describing that as a trivial sum not worth making a stand on, which is an assumption that holds for some people and not for others, right? Anyway, thanks, I guess (and my apologies for putting you on the spot); it would in fact make a difference for me, but not enough that I can't afford to say no on account of awkwardness and pride. So, if it actually is trivial to you, please go ahead and donate it to someone local instead.
posted by trig at 5:03 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
In most consumer relationships, you're lucky if a class action is even a possibility.
These days most companies impose individual arbitration and a class waiver under the Federal Arbitration Act.
AT&T v. Concepcion
More recently Viking Cruises v. Moriana (though that's an employment case).
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:40 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
These days most companies impose individual arbitration and a class waiver under the Federal Arbitration Act.
AT&T v. Concepcion
More recently Viking Cruises v. Moriana (though that's an employment case).
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:40 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
If it’s not considered clogging up the courts to prosecute people for shoplifting 30$ worth of goods from a mega company, I can’t see how it can possibly be clogging up the courts to sue a mega company for stealing 30$ from a person who contracted with it.
It's both.
posted by dg at 2:33 PM on February 25
It's both.
posted by dg at 2:33 PM on February 25
« Older The worst night of the year to go out to dinner | Union of Soviet Smoochiest Republics Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Good luck to this lawsuit.
(They also just ditched the best streaming quality for nonpaying subscribers but i’m guessing that’s not likely to be called deceptive.)
posted by supercres at 10:14 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]