Disney Forces Vudu To Remove Content From User's Library (1 Viewer)

According to Vudu, Disney has instructed them to remove the 3D version of Malificent that many customers purchased for 19.99 because of a pricing error. In the past, Vudu has honored purchases with pricing mistakes. I once scored a movie for 99 cents because the rental price was mapped to the purchase button.

Yes, the $19.99 was clearly a mistake. They meant to say $32.99...

That is ridiculous. If a retailer makes a mistake, they eat the price difference. Doesn't that qualify as bait and switch?

Just another reason not to collect movies this way.

Its $35 now.

It's one thing to realize you've mispriced an item and to correct the price so future buyers pay the correct price. It's another thing entirely to forcibly remove something from somebody's library when the buyer did nothing wrong in the first place. It sounds incredibly irritating and frustrating to customers who bought something and then discovered they no longer had it. Imagining a similar scenario in real-world physical transactions sounds downright scary. Could you imagine if this was allowed for physical transactions? Can you imagine the grocery store or Best Buy breaking into your house to take back an item that they sold to you at the wrong price? Or what if a movie studio decided that they didn't like an Amazon sale on Blu-rays, and broke into every customer's house to get it back? Once the transaction has been completed, that should be the end of it. Studios want us to treat electronic ownership the same as ownership of the physical item - they want the two things to be the same from a customer's point of view. Well, if the store is allowed to break into your locker and steal the item back, and it's allowed, then digital ownership isn't the same as physical ownership.

Stories like this are what scare longtime collectors away from trying digital downloads and streaming purchases. This is such a ridiculous story. I always half-expected there to be a day when "purchases" disappeared from people's libraries years after they were made due to rights issues, but I never imagined I'd see something like this for a brand new purchase, particularly one where there weren't any rights issues or technical issues.

This isn't going to encourage anyone to make the transition to digital. I do find it annoying that once again, digital is the only way to get a Disney movie on 3D.

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but somebody needs to look into legal action. They need to establish that things like this are not okay if they want digital to succeed. I wonder if there is something in the term and conditions that explicitly allows this?

I do find it annoying that once again, digital is the only way to get a Disney movie on 3D.

Click to expand...

I've got Maleficent coming from Amazon UK, as Disney saw fit to release it on disc there. My parents picked up Frozen in Italy while on vacation there.

Adam Fleisher said:

That is ridiculous. If a retailer makes a mistake, they eat the price difference. Doesn't that qualify as bait and switch?

Click to expand...

No, it is not and bait and switch. Also, a retailer has no obligation to honor a price mistake.

-Keith

Keith Plucker said:

No, it is not and bait and switch. Also, a retailer has no obligation to honor a price mistake.

Click to expand...

CorrectWorking in retail management I can tell you that (at least in my state) the law is that a store would have to honor a price only if it advertises a price in print and there is no language specifying that they are not guaranteed to get it (such as quantities being limited). In this case, Vudu does not have to honor it.

But once you have made the purchase, and the product is delivered, they cannot re-possess the product. This story only makes me feel more confident in my digital UltraViolet Purchases. This has never happened to an UltraViolet title, only Disney titles, thus demonstrating the superiority of UltraViolet over DMA.

Joshua Clinard said:

But once you have made the purchase, and the product is delivered, they cannot re-possess the product. This story only makes me feel more confident in my digital UltraViolet Purchases. This has never happened to an UltraViolet title, only Disney titles, thus demonstrating the superiority of UltraViolet over DMA.

Click to expand...

Yes this is a Disney and Vudu issue not a electronic sell thru Ultraviolet issue. I find it ridiculous that Disney (and VUDU) would do this to its customers. If you purchased the item and it was a pricing mistake they should honor their error for the few that bought the title for that price. I smell a lawsuit on the horizon.

A lawsuit on the horizon... Oh I hope so!

bujaki said:

A lawsuit on the horizon... Oh I hope so!

Click to expand...

Oh, I hope a HIGHLY PROMOTED lawsuit, that causes tech-fear reporters, who've been told streaming is the "future" but don't know much about it to begin with, to panic like it's the very apocalypse of the industry...
Sometimes, dim naivety can be put to very good use.

I bought a "copy" of Bedknobs and Broomsticks from VUDU when it was still 139 minutes. Now they've gone back to the short version there, too, even though it isn't the version I paid for. On the other hand, my "copies" of The Happiest Millionaire and Night Crossing are the same as they always were.

If you're not boycotting this company yet, you should be.

All this, and Vudu still can't correct the many, many movies in their library that are in the incorrect aspect ratio, or only have stereo sound when even the DVD was 5.1.

Here's the big difference: When you purchase a film from a streaming service like Vudu, you are only purchasing a license to watch it. You never physically own the film. The license can be revoked at any time and you can be left with nothing. This is why I do not purchase digital copies. Once physical media is gone, I'm done.

Brian Kidd said:

Here's the big difference: When you purchase a film from a streaming service like Vudu, you are only purchasing a license to watch it. You never physically own the film. The license can be revoked at any time and you can be left with nothing. This is why I do not purchase digital copies. Once physical media is gone, I'm done.

Click to expand...

When I purchase a movie and download it to my PC which I unplug from my network and then watch on my TV. How do they revoke my license when the file which plays and is untethered is in my possession? Also if I never physically own the film then what is this that's taking up space on my hard drive or recorded BD-R? While the laws vary reality shows that yes the file is indeed in my possession to use.

Also weather I buy a film on a disc (which is zeros and ones pre installed on a piece of plastic) or I buy a film to download and then place the film (zeros and ones also on a BD-R which is also a piece of plastic) how is this different?? They are still in fact zeros and ones, no?

Can you show me a news item that shows someone who downloaded a purchased film via one of these modern download to own systems like Ultraviolet or Itunes who had it mysteriously removed or purged from their Hard Drive or BD-R after downloading? Now Ive seen this happen if you only rely on streams but a download, I have not.

I'll tell you exactly what they're going to do, Towergrove, probably as part of the CFF - they're going to make it so you can download a movie to play on your home network but you will need an internet connection to authenticate that the file you are playing is on the up and up, and that authentication could be taken away, making it a ad hoc license. It's what Microsoft tried to do with X-Box One. To be clear, I'm throwing a theory out there for the sake of discussion and I personally am fine with only owning a "license" to own films through UV and DMA...