Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Television

Disney+ Titles Disappear Without Warning, Bringing Confusion To The Streaming Wars (techdirt.com) 174

Posted by msmash from the stranger-things dept.
Karl Bode, writing for TechDirt: Disney has done amazing work driving new users to its Disney+ streaming service with low(ish) price point and exclusive programs like The Mandalorian. But users this week began noticing that movies that were on the service just last month are already falling out of rotation, without users being notified that they were disappearing: "...as 2020 began, some Disney Plus users noticed that a few films had gone missing from the streaming library. Dr. Dolittle, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Home Alone and Home Alone 2, and The Sandlot are no longer streamable on Disney Plus. All these titles disappeared without warning, and so far, Disney has not commented on the titles. Many fans are surprised by films dropping off the service, particularly since Disney hasn't issued press releases about the changes. Where companies like HBO and Netflix put out monthly bulletins of everything coming to and leaving their streaming services each month, so viewers can plan their last-minute binges, Disney has only emphasized new arrivals, not departures."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney+ Titles Disappear Without Warning, Bringing Confusion To The Streaming Wars More

Disney+ Titles Disappear Without Warning, Bringing Confusion To The Streaming Wars

Comments Filter:

  • Is Disney+ really worth it? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by knaapie ( 214889 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:09AM (#59595576) Homepage

    I really wonder if Disney+ will be a big competitor for Netflix and stay that way.
    My children watch it, but I guess once they have seen all the Marvel stuff and maybe some more movies, theyâ(TM)ll switch back to fulltime Netflix.

    • In my opinion, no. I got it primarily because I was just needing to switch to Hulu from Sling due to Sling dropping a channel set I considered vital to me remaining. I've definitely watched a few of the marvel movies again, and I watched the Mandalorian, but even while watching that I was starting to decide it was time to drop Disney+. Doesn't help that Hulu increased their price the month after I subscribed. Probably giving it another week and then I'm dumping it.

      • Now that the first season of the Mandalorian is released, and with no timeline on the release of any other announced titles, I can't see why I'll keep my subscription much longer. I'm not interested in watching reruns of The Simpsons or watching a whole bunch of Marvel superhero movies. The amount of content on Disney+ just isn't that spectacular. I guess if you're a fan of Pixar and the Disney animated films or the live action dreck they released in the 60s and 70s, that will keep you going a bit longer, b

    • Re:Is Disney+ really worth it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyberfunkr ( 591238 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:44AM (#59595766)

      After a couple of months, I can say definitely not.

      The biggest problem with the service is that it's nothing but Disney content. When first launched, it was touted as having decades worth of Disney-property content. And everyone (myself included) bought into it.

      But now that I have the service, I'm having a hard time finding anything I *really* want to watch. I've gone through the Mandolorian, watched the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe (at least those they currently have the rights to stream), both "Tron" movies, and a number of Pixar films. Now I'm at a loss.

      There are buckets of Disney-property films and shorts, but it's all "Disney". This is no "50 years of" Pixar, LucasFilms, or Marvel. While I enjoyed "The Black Hole" in the theater, it really doesn't need a second watch through. Same with "Bedknobs and Broomsticks", "Escape From Witch Mountain", and "The Apple Dumpling Gang". As a kid they were fun, as an adult, it is just a distraction. I don't need to relive "The Great Mouse Detective", and I'm not pining to see Mickey, Donald, and Goofy bust ghosts in "Lonesome Ghosts".

      In the end, it's just another service with thousands of movie and nothing to watch.

      • This is no "50 years of" Pixar, LucasFilms, or Marvel.

        That's because Pixar, LucasFilms and Marvel don't have 50 years of content.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hodr ( 219920 )

          He's just lucky he didn't besmirch Blackbeard's Ghost or The Shaggy DA.

        • Re:Is Disney+ really worth it? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:31PM (#59596244)

          There's some real animation treasure to be had in there. I saw Three Caballeros (1945) when I was little, around '76-77, and somehow there was a copy of the 78-rpm shellac album in the house, so I played the hell out of it.

          Now that I see Caballeros as a grownup, it's a masterpiece. The beginning of the third reel will make your head explode. It's the optical soundtrack, animated and abstracted. (if you don't know what an optical soundtrack is, google "rca photophone")

          And once you've seen Caballeros, goooood luck getting rid of the earworm that are "Os Quindins de YaYa" and the titular song itself.

      • While I enjoyed "The Black Hole" in the theater, it really doesn't need a second watch through.

        Black Hole is some of the best science fiction from its era. It holds up extremely well.

        • While I enjoyed "The Black Hole" in the theater, it really doesn't need a second watch through.

          Black Hole is some of the best science fiction from its era. It holds up extremely well.

          Asteroids in the vacuum of space burning like they're plummeting through an atmosphere. Check.
          Said asteroid lazily rolling through the superstructure of the space station. Check.
          The air in said space station not roaring out through the massive hole. Check.

          And, of course, Oh-too-cutesy-poo-for-words robot. Check.

          Oh, yeah, it holds up just *great*.

          (This is just what I remember from seeing it in the theater; I am *not* going to subject myself to it's utter stupidity a second time.)

      • I think we always set our expectation too high for TV and movie viewing anyways.
        Any Service we are only going to watch less then 1% of all the content available.
        We will be interested in New Stuff that marketing says we should like, and with stories mostly written with modern sensibilities.
        We will be interested in Nostalgic Stuff. Those stories we seen when we were kids, that we relate to the good feelings we had at the time.
        If we are watching with someone else, they may bring you along onto some some stori

      • Does it cost $0 in addition to what you already pay for ISP access? If not, it's not worth it. They purposely release top content weekly to inflate sub. Any PC can be set up with a list of shows that you want to watch, and automated downloading via torrent and populating to a PLEX share which you can access from your set top box or SmartTV. You never have to pay any stream ghoul, and as soon as the shows you want come out (or movies, when DVD releases ship) your computer can get them for free from other com

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megane ( 129182 )
        And I'm sure that you also wouldn't be able to watch the original version of Song of the South.

    • I really wonder if Disney+ will be a big competitor for Netflix and stay that way.

      It is not a competitor to Netflix at all. They are vastly different in what they do, and Disney+ is priced as an adjunct to some other service (like Netflix).

      They have a lot of good content, but since it'a all Disney it's not really as varied in tone as you'd get from other services, and they will probably roll out original stuff much slower than other services.

      But even though limited in scope they have a ton of interesting s

    • Re:Is Disney+ really worth it? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by grumpy-cowboy ( 4342983 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @12:01PM (#59595848)

      I paid for a full year but I'll not renewing it after this. Except Mandalorian, almost all the stuff on Disney+ (at least in Canada) is just old stuff. I have Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+. Netflix remains the best. I have Prime "by default" because I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon so Prime is a no brainer. So by the end of the year, only Netflix and Prime Video will have my money.

    • Re:Is Disney+ really worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @12:30PM (#59595996)

      Well I think the hope with Disney+ was unlimited access to all its historic materials. But if material just randomly disappears and isn't available. It worth is dropping.

      I really don't like the fact that all the studios are pushing their own service for their content.
      I can give Disney a small pass (D-) due to the fact that they have a lot of content available, with a lot of good content.
      But CBS All access, Sorry, I am not paying an other monthly fee for 1 or 2 shows I may be mildly interested in watching.

    • it is for me, for now anyways

      Watching old Simpsons, Gargoyles, and before winter is through I'd like to see if I have the endurance to watch the entire Marvel cinematic universe. Mandalorian was alright, and some other bits of nostalgia here and there.

      Once summer comes along, I'm not sure I'd keep paying for it though. And you know what? I like that model. No contracts, no fuss, no hassle.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hodr ( 219920 )

      Judging by how many times my son has watched Toy Story, we may reach heat death of the universe before he has seen every movie available on Disney+

    • *bumped up from accidental post to a sub-thread, as comment was intended for subHeadline op"

      Does it cost $0 in addition to what you already pay for ISP access? If not, it's not worth it. They purposely release top content weekly to inflate sub. Any PC can be set up with a list of shows that you want to watch, and automated downloading via torrent and populating to a PLEX share which you can access from your set top box or SmartTV. You never have to pay any stream ghoul, and as soon as the shows you want com

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      Last time I lived with a child, Disney+ would have been pretty much mandatory.

      Note, I don't have it, and I know it's not fully geared up (as witnessed by this article and it losing things randomly)

      But it if it has their children's sitcoms, and their animated catalog, it will be in many many households.

      Especially if they start to choke off access to other things (fewer openings of the vault, don't license to other services, etc.)

      Disney pretty much owns the box office too, they could pretty much starve everyo

  • False scarcity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:17AM (#59595606)

    Disney does shit like this all the time. They quit making VHS or DVD or whatever media for a while just to drum up interest. Then they advertise "opening the Disney vault" to sell new copies of decades old movies. Every move they make is based on finances.

    • Re:False scarcity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:36AM (#59595738) Journal

      Then they've utterly missed the point of streaming. They fuck over Netflix only to behave as if its the 1990s? Fuck me, but large corporations can be so incredibly stupid and tone deaf to consumer wants.

      • Re:False scarcity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:52AM (#59595810)

        It's not just Disney. Seems like everyone and their bother is pulling their stuff from Netflix and starting their own streaming service.

        This will only kill the golden goose as customers subscribe for a month, binge-watch the exclusives they want, then cancel and move to the next service, cancel after 1 month and move to the next.

        Be interesting to see how many of these streaming services survive....

        • The next stage will be enforced annual subscriptions. Mark my words, the streaming services won't let this go on for too long.

          • Likely not enforced in the normal sense;rather, I suspect they'll make it uneconomical to go month-by-month ($30/mo vs. $120/yr and such), and roll the availability of content to thwart people who wait for a season to finish before subscribing.

            • The problem with rolling content availability it destroys the ability to use your back catalog to bring in new users. For most of TVs history long story arcs were avoided because they lost people. Nobody particularly wants to start watching Mandalorian at season 2...or even worse, they hear its good and are forced to start watching at season 2 episode 4.

              I'm sure they've thought of that.

              Conversely, while I personally like Netflix's "whole season at once" model it feels like leaving money on the table to me.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by pnutjam ( 523990 )

                Conversely, while I personally like Netflix's "whole season at once" model it feels like leaving money on the table to me.

                uh.. oh, someone took econ101.
                Humans aren't spherical cows.

              • Yeah...I started watching GoT after Season 7 was over. Then I watched all 7 seasons in 2 months...just in time for Season 8. If those past seasons were not available, I never would have paid to watch Season 7 or 8.

            • $30 for the month it takes to watch a season of The Mandalorian is still cheaper than $120 for a year....with not watching anything for the other 11 months.

        • It sounds to me like a case for disney to do a rotation... The goal is to get people subscribed for as long as possible... Apparently disney see's that they make more having 1/10th as many people paying them directly... than getting whatever their share of netflix subscriber revenue they get... but as you said some of that can be lost when people move to the rotation model...

          How do you beat the rotation model... pretty obvious... you have to have a reason why they should want to be subscribed this month..

      • Corporations don't care what the consumers want, they care what generates the most revenue.

      • Since when to corporations pander to "consumer wants"? Once a company is large enough, they crush any form of competition, buy off enough political clout to change laws, then dictate to the consumers what those "consumers" allowed to have (ie: Net Neutrality, Citizens United)- Leaving us today with virtually no rights. We no longer "own" anything. We rent the right to use something under dictated conditions, for a short period of time. Even automobile manufactures tried to use DMCA copyright laws to sto

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Based on the Disney fans I've known over the years, they love being bent over by The Mouse on a regular basis.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NaCh0 ( 6124 )

        As long as these dumb consumers keep consuming, the companies have no incentive to change their behavior.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sirpwn4g3 ( 5069407 )
      Nice hot take. Slashdot is real late to the party on this story, as are it's readers. This is a licensing issue and the movies will be back.

    • Re:False scarcity (Score:5, Informative)

      by MeNeXT ( 200840 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:02PM (#59596126)

      And that is why thepiratebay is still relevant.

    • Yeah. It's almost like they're in business to maximize profits and shareholder revenue or something. Those bastards!

  • Licensing terms (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:17AM (#59595610) Journal

    Disney said that this was due to licensing agreements that have been in place (sometimes for decades) and that many of them should be expiring soon (unlike Disney Copyrights, which somehow last forever) and the titles will be back eventually.

    The real question is why, then, were these movies available on Disney+ at all? My guess is Disney decided they would throw money at the licensees for a month's worth of streaming, to have even more titles available at the launch (especially the Home Alone series which are a Christmas staple for many). This wouldn't be financially sustainable, so they decided to only do it for a month or so at launch as a form of loss leader / promotion for the service.

    • unlike Disney Copyrights, which somehow last forever

      It is lobbying. The pay a lot of money to make sure the copyrights laws are written in such a way that benefits them a lot.

      • Re:Licensing terms (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fenrif ( 991024 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @12:06PM (#59595874)

        Which is why I chose to abandon the concept of copyright. It's been perverted beyond usability. It's not fit for purpose. We didn't do this, they did. And luckily for us the technology exists which allows us to completely ignore it with ease.

        I wanted to see the Mandalorian, so I pirated it. My friend wanted to watch it, so I put it on a thumbdrive for him. I see no moral quandry with this whatsoever. Neither should any one else.

        • Copyright is fine. The current system is not.
          I don't feel bad for getting something from a large corp since it really isn't going to matter all that much to them financially.
          I will still buy games. Especially from smaller devs.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by fenrif ( 991024 )

            Copyright was fine. It isn't now. Without a healthy and robust public domain system in place to ensure innovation and creativity we get the world we live in today. Everything is a remake that is a pale shadow of the original, or a reboot, or a re-imagining, or a soft reboot prequel that tells the same story with worse characters, etc.

            Smaller devs, in my experience, don't voluntarily put their games into public domain on the whole. Smaller devs act just as bad as big devs. The size of the studio is immateria

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Sabriel ( 134364 )
          Yeah, a bunch of greedy assholes perverted copyright into a societally-damaging farce by extending it into infinity and beyond. That's pretty much true. However, the Mandalorian still cost money to make and it hasn't even been two months since its debut, never mind copyright's original fourteen years. You could instead have decided to:

          1- simply just not watch it; this isn't the X-Men, you actually do have a choice here
          2- wait seven, ten, fourteen or whatever years that you feel would actually be an equit

          • Re:Licensing terms (Score:4, Informative)

            by beuges ( 613130 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @02:29AM (#59598248)

            I would have no problem paying for a Disney+ subscription if it were available in my country. I'd probably even keep it indefinitely since I have an 11yo daughter.

            The problem is that they've made the Mandalorian a Disney+ exclusive, and Disney+ is only available in a handful of countries. If they'd license it out to say Netflix in the countries that Disney+ isn't available, then it would be a net win for everyone - Netflix pays a huge amount of money to Disney to stream Mandalorian outside of Disney+ regions, and end users pay Disney a huge amount of money in regions that it is available.

            So until D+ is available in my country, what are my options?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      Disney said that this was due to licensing agreements that have been in place (sometimes for decades) and that many of them should be expiring soon

      Related: when Disney+ first came out, the bobsledding movie Cool Runnings* was not available due to licensing. As of 1 Jan, it is.

      * Don't hate on it. The kids enjoyed it. John Candy is always great to see. As formulaic sports films go, training montage and all, this one at least had better laughs.

    • The real question is why, then, were these movies available on Disney+ at all?

      My bet is they'd botched the rollout. It wouldn't be surprising that they'd want all the content on their servers even if it's not available yet. Simplified management and all that. Chances are, they're keeping quiet hoping the licensees don't come after them for money for violating their exclusivity agreement.

  • Of course (Score:5, Funny)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:18AM (#59595620)
    These titles will be always available on the open seas.

  • You want it foreverty-ever? (Score:3)

    by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:18AM (#59595622)

    You want it forever? Buy the goddamned dvd or bluray.

    Stream for the convenience
    Buy and hoard for the permanence.

    Don't want to wake up to this reality? Then make do without your favorites.

    Yes I'm aware there's also the Capt. Eyepatch route, and to those who fly the Jolly Roger, more power to you.

    • Sadly making it more convenient (transferring those many DVDs onto a file server) turns us all into "Captain Eyepatch". It shouldn't but it totally does

    • You want it forever? Buy the goddamned dvd or bluray.

      This is Disney - they don't even leave everything on the market to buy. Until they re-release the double-platinum 50-year Collector's edition. Then it will be on the market as if it's a brand new movie for a year or two. Then back to the vault until the 60 year triple-platinum release.

    • Where can you buy the dvd of the mandalorian?

      • Somewhere, someone is probably selling some on a folding table at the far end of a strip mall parking lot.

  • We don't care (Score:3)

    by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:21AM (#59595638)

    "We donâ(TM)t care. We donâ(TM)t have to. Weâ(TM)re Disney."

    (with apologies to Ernestine)

  • Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:22AM (#59595646) Journal

    Somebody is missing the point and I don't think it's me.

    A content on demand service needs to carry the entire catalog, sure make a fuss about the latest additions but there is no good reason to not just keep building the catalogue. The subscription should provide access to the full catalogue of content. There is absolutely no good reason to remove content in some kind of rotation, except to screw over the consumer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mckwant ( 65143 )

      Netflix's lineup changes all the time, to the point where it's just a monthly advert-icle on BGR. Can't believe anybody's cancelling over Dr. Doolittle or PotCarribbean sequels.

      I, too, expected better of Disney. Having typed that, my reasoning escapes me.

  • Netflix was synonymous with anti-Balkanization. Now it seems that only pirate sites offer you any breadth of content. Remember PopcornTime? Streaming p2p works. Why can't that be legitimized with Blockchain, with something like a smart contract paying both the distributors a portion (the Blockchain network) and the production team as well? Companies are trying it, DLive among them. Would be nice for a large studio to sign on and really get the ball rolling.

    • This seems to be the case across the board. A few years ago, if you wanted to listen to a band, it would definitely be on iTunes. Now, you have to check iTunes, Google Play Store, Amazon, Bandcamp, and other places if you want to find it, or try the band's/label's website and hope they are not sold out of traditional media, since oftentimes, they don't bother with downloads.

      I don't really desire a blockchain based system. It just means more stuff out there that can be used for lawsuits, for example, if a

  • Disney vault again Why can't just own stuff and not rent / sub to non live stuff?

  • Welcome to Streaming and Licensing Issues (Score:3)

    by segedunum ( 883035 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:28AM (#59595684)
    The only way to guarantee anything is to have the physical media in your hand.

  • Cancelled (Score:3)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:36AM (#59595736)

    signed up to watch The Mandalorian.

    Cancelled after watching episode 10.

    Will resume subscription when the next season comes out.

    Don't much care about their other disappearing content.

    • Not even going to resume when Obi Wan comes on, eh?

      Or watch Clone Wars/Rebels stuff now to get good background info for the next season of The Mandalorian?

      • Not even going to resume when Obi Wan comes on, eh?

        Not much fascination with Obi Wan...other than maybe his name. I can easily wait until Mandalorian 2, and watch Obi while I am already subscribed for that period of time.

        Or watch Clone Wars/Rebels stuff now to get good background info for the next season of The Mandalorian?

        Already seen Clone Wars.

        As for Rebels....kid Jedi? The "animated Harry Potty of the Star Wars universe?" No thanks.

  • Gotta keep the vault stocked somehow. Mountains of cash alone apparently don't cut it.

  • DVD (Score:2)

    by hymie! ( 95907 )

    If you buy the DVD, you wouldn't have this problem.

  • It seemed that the entire free world (and probably a few people in North Korea) subscribed to D+ this fall. There was plenty of pent up demand, and the Disney loyalists were going to be a subscriber base regardless of the actual content...which I found perplexing since most of them already have a shelf full of VHS tapes and DVDs of the stuff they like.

    Then, the floodgates opened, and it seemed that lots of people were having issues with their streaming. People who could stream Netflix perfectly were getting

    • So the entire free world only consists of "United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and Puerto Rico"? That's the only countries they have opened the service for as of yet.

  • We probably need mandatory licensing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @12:36PM (#59596024)
    Amend copyright law with mandatory licensing. Giving someone complete monopoly control over distributing their content introduces all the problems that come with a monopoly. To avoid this, licensing should be mandatory. i.e. If you license your copyrighted work to someone at a certain price, you're required to license it to anyone else who wants to license it at that same price. It's the same strategy used with utility monopolies. The local power utility is given a monopoly on the power lines going to your house. But they don't get to pick and choose who gets to use it. They're required to charge the same transport fee to any power generation company wanting to sell you power. The monopoly isn't inherent to the nature of their service (anyone else could run power lines to your house), it's an artificial construct given to them by the government (the government only allows one company to string up power lines).

    This would also help discourage the ridiculous balkanization of content we're starting to see, where you feel you need to subscribe to service z when you already subscribe to services x and y, because service z has one movie or series you want even though the rest of their library duplicates content you're already paying the license fee for with services x and y. If content libraries were really being licensed fairly, you'd pay less for Hulu if you already subscribed to Netflix, because there's substantial cross-over between the catalogs of both services. Paying full price for both means you're double-paying for a lot of content.
  • They lost the rights t- nevermind.

  • We need to revise the copyright laws, Disney has a monopoly on a lot of entertainment and they'll start choking other outlets. It's great from a business perspective but lousy for consumers.

  • poetic justice (Score:3)

    by Chromal ( 56550 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:38PM (#59596262)
    People who turn their back on the free market are kind of begging to be exploited. Who tells themselves, "Who needs competition, I'm sure the IPR-owning entity with a direct monetary incentive to charge as much as possible for as little service as possible will always give me the best value and selection!" Why spend $3.19 for a used DVD of Home Alone 2 on Amazon when you could fork over $84/yr to a streaming service like Disney+ and not have it securely in your library instead?

  • I still don't understand Disney+ (Score:3)

    by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:49PM (#59596294)
    Why did Disney even bother with all this? Just license it out to Netflix/whoever, and cash your check each month. I'm on the seven-day trial, watched The Mandalorian, and was thoroughly unimpressed (and I'm a huge SW fan). Even at $7/mo, I doubt I'm going to keep this just to occasionally watch an old Disney/Marvel movie. It's probably more economical to just spend that money on a DVD from time to time. And if Mandalorian is any indication of how well the next shows they have planned are, I'm not sticking around for any of that.

  • Give me physical copies any day (Score:3)

    by TomTraynor ( 82129 ) <thomas.traynor@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @01:50PM (#59596300)

    While not all videos are on DVD or BluRay a lot of them are and I pick up a copy. I can play them when I want, where I want, on the device (player or laptop or USB DVD/BluRay) not have to worry if I have a network connection. I also do not have to worry that the digital copy goes into that bit bucket in the sky.

    Streaming is a convenience and if the price is right I may subscribe to that service (still haven't seen a need yet) and then if the movie/show is worthwhile I may try to pick up a physical copy.

  • This concept of competing streaming services hoarding content is anti-competitive and should be outlawed.

    The notion you pay us for a service where content has been advertised and in return we can do whatever the fuck we want and take it back when we want and you just have to bend over and take with no recourse should be illegal.

  • Song of the South? (Score:3)

    by kackle ( 910159 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @02:44PM (#59596500)
    I guess there's no hope for seeing "Song of the South" then. I've heard that, although being a lighthearted kids' movie, it's somehow racist. I'd like to judge that for myself, but I CANNOT SEE IT*. 'Not from the library. 'Not eBay. 'Not YouTube. (I'd like to do so legally...) That's the problem with allowing others the control, on a whim, for whatever weak reason, they can deny.

    * By the way, can we please stop erasing history because of people's feelings? You know what happens when we don't know our history...
    • Just wait until it enters the public domain... (yes, I kid)

    • The same complaint is true about the HUGE number of propaganda films Disney cranked out during WWII. I'm sure they'd get boring after the first few, but I still think it would be interesting to watch a few of them (if only to cringe, groan, and feel morally-enlightened compared to 1940s America). As far as I can tell, NONE of them are on Disney+.

      Also interesting would be English-dubbed restored copies of unauthorized Eastern-bloc movies/shows made (around the 1970s, I think) with Disney characters. I'm gues

  • And people thought it was going to go away after the jump to digital.

    I wonder what other titles will disappear after the "honeymoon" phase of Disney+...

  • I thought the whole point was that Disney owned all the content and nothing would disappear, only that some things had to wait until other streaming agreements played out.

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Close