Amazon Prime Video is able to remove a video from your library after purchase.
Amazon Prime Video is able to remove a video from your library after purchase.
We are contacting you regarding a past Prime Video purchase(s). The below content is no longer playable on Prime Video.
In an effort to compensate you for the inconvenience, we have applied a £5.99 Amazon Gift Card to your account. The Gift Card amount is equal to the amount you paid for the Prime Video purchase(s). To apologize for the inconvenience, we've also added an Amazon Gift Certificate of £5 to your account. Your Gift Card balance will be automatically applied to your next eligible order. You can view your balance and usage history in Your Account here:
You're viewing a single thread.
You don’t own the video file. You own access to their video file, which they also don’t own, they only own the right to distribute it. If their distribution contract ends and doesn’t gets renewed, then they can’t let you access the file. At least they refunded you. This system is one of the issues with the ongoing writers and actors strikes. Amazon can decide to stop making a video available, which cuts all dividends revenues to actors and writers. So having a video available for you to watch costs money to Amazon (or Netflix or Max…) but not enough content makes users unsubscribe, so they ride that thin line for maximized revenue. This means that older movies that aren’t blockbusters get dropped in favor of new content. Now new content doesn’t means good content, remember, it needs to be as cheap as possible. Aaand this is why steaming companies are spiraling down and everything is going to shit. Filmmaking is an art form turned into an industry. But art isn’t about maximized profit, it’s about art first. But you can’t make that art without millions of dollars and that requires the art to take a step back to maximize profit, but not too far back. It’s a really big issue in the film and entertainment industry.
— I’m an IATSE local 600 camera operator.
They should be refunding in cash though, not store credit.
Depends on the contract you agreed to with Amazon.
Your argument basically boils down to "never use amazon or any other shitty tech company for that matter", which I guess I agree with.
This place is as weird as Reddit. You agreed with him, and he's been down voted, and you've been up voted. So weird.
You are always free to sue with your lawyer to make a more just world as the founding fathers intended... /s
Then they should refund you. Even in the event that's the case, still makes me not want to risk it.
But you can’t make that art without millions of dollars
I have a used 3DS with a touchscreen and stylus, and a drawing program, and I beg to differ.
You can totally make art for less than ten thousand dollars. Heck, most art within that price bracket is valued objectively better than the """art""" costing more. The problem is not "making art is costly", it's that the current schools of media seem to have a curriculum purpose-built to make artist understudies belive that has to be the case.
On a side note, I’m playing DS games on my iPhone with Delta emulator and it’s awesome. But still not the point.
Lol, I have been using vDS on my Android phone it's the DS emulator that I found works best (at least best free emulator.) Most games work well, some don't seem to translate well to a phone screen though. I wanted to play Sonic Rush Adventure, and it runs fine on the emulator but the on screen buttons just don't seem to be suitable for that type of game.
This is veering off topic hard but the Zelda Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are perfect. It can be controlled 100% with touchscreen only.
That’s not the point. We’re talking about filmmaking. Some art project don’t need that much but others do.
So? I've seen pretty good filmmaking art done by far less than a gazillion dollars, and then even showing up for free on Youtube.
Come on. It's not a need of the art.
Still. Not. The point!!! I can make a sculpture out of paper maché or an arch to a city. Both are sculptures both are art but they don’t cost the same price to make.
I still don't get how a consumer can't just pay (fantasy hypothetical world) $10, and what they watch/view is recorded.
- Streaming company takes their cut, distributes the rest to content producers proportioned based on what was watched.
- Producers take their cut then distribute the rest as residuals.
I lied. I do know that the current contract infrastructure doesn't allow for this.
Because of the shareholders take all the benefit without contributing actual work. Just capital. And the same shareholders don’t want to take risks. But you can’t make a movie without money upfront. That is the whole problem.
What?! You union guys don't work on promises that you'll get paid, maybe, sometime in the future and exposure? /s
(Also, I definitely should have put a joke about film there but not in the proper frame of mind to make a good one.)
That's what MoviesAnywhere was for. If the provider stops selling the video or goes under, it should still be available there.