You know how some people like to say that
physical media is dead and streaming is the future? Well, Apple is
doing a pretty good job right now of proving that theory well and truly
wrong.
Reports have started to emerge of Apple completely deleting films
from iTunes accounts even when they’ve been bought, not merely rented.
And when people complain about this, they’re receiving an astonishing
message from Apple telling them that iTunes is just a “store front,” and
so Apple isn’t to blame if a film studio decides it no longer wants to
make its titles available on iTunes.
Even worse, it seems that if bought film titles are removed from your
account you may not even be entitled to get a refund for them. When an
iTunes user in Canada complained to Apple that their initial offer of a
free $5.99 rental hardly seemed suitable recompense for him having three
bought films summarily removed from his account, Apple replied that
“our ability to offer refunds diminishes over time. Hence your purchases
doesn’t meet the conditions for a refund.”
The Canadian user was offered a further two free rentals as
compensation. But, of course, as well as being far less in monetary
terms than the films user had bought, having short-term rental rights to
a film is very different indeed from owning a film.
While I’m hearing from others who fortunately did get a refund for
their deleted films, the bottom line in all this is that Apple appears
to be openly saying that if you buy a film on iTunes, you don’t really
own it at all. It may only stick around in your iTunes account for as
long as the studio who really owns it decides it wants it to stick
around in your iTunes account.
The Canadian user suffering this issue was pointed to this page of Apple legalese in the response where he was told that he wasn’t entitled to compensation for his lost purchases.
I’m also starting to receive reports today of the recent return of
another major issue with iTunes movies: the downgrading of 4K HDR films
to HD. This started happening in 2017, just after the Apple TV 4K
launched, as reported here.
At that point Apple suggested that there was some sort of labeling
issue (where films said they were HD on their header page, but played as
4K) that they managed to (largely) fix. And it seems that the return of
this issue may still be responsible for some of the “lost” 4K movies
Apple TV 4K users are seeing now.
This doesn’t seem to explain all of the 4K to HD switches, though. It seems that some are down to Apple’s
original policy of offering free HD to 4K upgrades of films no longer
applying to titles bought in HD outside of iTunes. Say, via the
iTunes-compatible Movies Anywhere platform. Though I am recently hearing
from people saying that films bought on other iTunes-compatible
platforms in 4K are also now only appearing in HD on iTunes.
In fact, I have even been contacted just today by an iTunes user who
tells me that dozens of films he owns in iTunes — many of which were
actually bought in iTunes — have stepped back on his Apple TV 4K to HD,
having previously being available in 4K. This includes titles that are
still available in 4K on VUDU.
It’s worth noting that the specific incident of films being
completely deleted I refer to in this article happened in Canada; it’s
possible that iTunes users in the U.S. and elsewhere haven’t experienced
the same issue (yet…) due to differences in film rights between
different territories.
But actually these sorts of regional rights differences merely
underline the fundamental point Apple seems to be doing its best to
confirm right now: That the only way you can be sure you own anything is
if you’re physically holding it in your hand.
I’ve asked Apple for comment on these iTunes issues, and will provide
an update if they come back with anything worth sharing. In the
meantime, though, if you’ve experienced either films you bought
disappearing entirely from iTunes, or films that once appeared in 4K now
only appearing in HD, please let me know (with details, if possible, of
whether you bought the title from within iTunes or via another
compatible platform) via the Twitter account shown at the bottom of this
article.
You don’t own anything that has DRM – not movies, not ebooks, nothing.
we’ve been seeing female characters drawn with their nipples pointing out of their clothes, with cameltoe poppin’ out of leather pants somehow, with thong leotards with their butt cheeks flapping in the wind. is about time we saw some super men dick if u ask me
Honestly I read the bleeding cool article when the news broke and laughed my ass off.
“Many retailers were okay with a butt crack…. But a Batpenis on full display in many areas of the United States of America is a different story entirely. There are calls to make the comic returnable. Or maybe reprinted with the original shadow.”
I have to ask, where is this energy when Supergirl, a 16 year old character, has dozens of panty shots with her skirt just so? Are these people who are upset and demanding returnable orders over a rated M comic book with a penis inside it also upset when a RHATO 32, a rated T comic book, had Starfire wearing what is essentially lingerie lounging seductively on a sports car with her perfectly round magic breasts?
Bruce Wayne has an anatomically sized penis that was drawn without sexualization in a book meant to be purchased and read by adults and comic stores are freaking out and want their money back. They’re weak as hell. Bruce’s nude body was drawn with more respect than the clothed bodies of teenage girls.
Where’s the outrage over that?
Got a lot of people messaging me saying that there is no penis in Batman Damned. DC wound up censoring it. I honestly don’t care about that. I do care they said they removed it because “It doesn’t add to the story.”
DC continues to reprint & profit off of mid 2000s Supergirl books filled with butt/boob poses, nipples poking out of fabric, skirts so low the artist can draw the pelvic bone, and panty shots of a 16 year old girl (XXX). They have sold statues of Supergirl with clothes that look like bodypaint and panty shots with her butt sticking out (XXXXX X)
Again, I don’t care that the penis is gone. I care that DC thinks they can have it both ways. A non-sexualized penis doesn’t add to their story. Evidently sexualizing teenage girls does add to their stories. Hyper-sexualizing women in general adds to their stories. Why is that?
MBMBAM!Justin: wholesome; a good, good boy; loves his brothers; bad at telling jokes and making up songs; wants to munch
Sawbones!Justin: loves his wife; impressed by her knowledge and intelligence; horrified by nature and humanity in general; did I mention he loves his wife?
TAZ!Justin: Tired 24/7; constantly looking for ways to destroy Griffin’s sanity; 1008% done with Clint; just wants to rest; praying for death; too cool for school
Polygon!Justin: An Old God; the most horrifying creature of darkness to ever live; chaotic evil
As an entry-level DnD player can someone explain to me in the simplest possible way how to differentiate wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers from each other?
OK. Wizard is a nerd who learned magic from a book. Being a nerd, they slot their magic into a spreadsheet and make a new one every day to organize those spells. What they can cast varies based on what they can get in their book of spells. Like many nerds, can get really good at any particular thing if they’ve read up on it and have time to prepare but bad with surprises.
The sorcerer is yer shonen protagonist who has phenomenal cosmic power inherent to their being or is descended from something powerful, or both. Their spells are a small list of signature moves, and like most shonen protagonists, they doesn’t change their signature moves, they just learn some more as time goes on. And they tend to develop powers that change how those moves work so they don’t get stale, in this case metamagic.
The Warlock is yer underachiever, who made a deal with satan/cthulu/the sugarplum fairy for magical powers. They borrowed a little magic from something very powerful, basically, and so they know a very small number of spells they fire off at maximum power but can’t hold much of it because it’s not really theirs. The rest of it they get by with spooky supernatural powers that are LIKE magic and being tougher than the nerd or the protagonist, and better at stabbing people who think they’re going to cast a spell. (Gameplay-wise, they’re a little more robust than the other two but only have like two spells. To compensate they get those spells back whenever they take a break, and get the best attack cantrip in the game, but the Wiz and Sorc have their spells for the day while the Warlock tends to blow theirs in one encounter.)
i'll apple your turnover 