Expired Hot Deals

[iTunes] Batman Event (Animated, Beyond, Brave & Bold & 66' TV Show) UPDATE

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 20th, 2021 3:01 am
Deal Addict
Jan 10, 2009
1359 posts
803 upvotes
Toronto
I'm sure there are some M4V Converter out there that can remove the DRmare.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 15, 2005
4053 posts
1465 upvotes
I love these series! I used to make myself available to watch them whenever they were on. It was usually Saturday afternoons for Batman Beyond and Saturday mornings for Justice League. Even now as an adult, I still enjoy them as much as I did when I was younger.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
464 posts
618 upvotes
ertmanius wrote: Devil's Advocate, but you do own something. You own the access to the media with all it limitations, until such a time its no longer available, such as the examples you provided. These limitations should be factored into the value to the consumer.

I agree that this situation sucks and I would rather pay a premium to own physical copies, even though they will at some point become obsolete or damaged.
lol. I think a lot of that is wordplay. Owning a license vs owning your copy of the work.

Presuming you keep a DVD-player and your discs in working order, or back up to a DRM-free method, there's a good chance you can outlast creeping obsolescence when you REALLY own something.

When someone can just turn out the lights without warning, owning a license that says you should be able to use it becomes kind of useless.

Sure that factors into the price, but I don't think that factors into most people's decisions. just being a consumer's advocate. ;)
Member
Feb 27, 2007
347 posts
67 upvotes
So, the 66 series is on for $50 if you buy the complete set. Or it's $9.99 for seasons 1, 2a, 2b, and 3. So.... buy the seasons and save $10, that's what I did!
Sr. Member
Jul 13, 2011
579 posts
302 upvotes
Ottawa
pdipps wrote: lol. I think a lot of that is wordplay. Owning a license vs owning your copy of the work.

Presuming you keep a DVD-player and your discs in working order, or back up to a DRM-free method, there's a good chance you can outlast creeping obsolescence when you REALLY own something.

When someone can just turn out the lights without warning, owning a license that says you should be able to use it becomes kind of useless.

Sure that factors into the price, but I don't think that factors into most people's decisions. just being a consumer's advocate. ;)
It’s not wordplay. Your points are valid though. Not to dissimilar to the Apple court cases going on right now regarding “buying” these digital items.

It’s arguable that You aren’t purchasing a product, you are purchasing a service in perpetuity, with exceptions, and you “own” that access.

I guess this brings up the debate whether you can ever really “own” something intangible. The closest you get is having the ability to store a file on a computer drive, technically it doesn’t mean you “own” it but it doesn’t mean you have control over it. Aside from that you can only have rights to something intangible.

You do bring up a good point regarding owning media in a physical format. You can download HD copies of media purchased on the iTunes and store them on your computer until such time they become victims of their own obsolescence.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
464 posts
618 upvotes
ertmanius wrote: It’s not wordplay. Your points are valid though. Not to dissimilar to the Apple court cases going on right now regarding “buying” these digital items.

It’s arguable that You aren’t purchasing a product, you are purchasing a service in perpetuity, with exceptions, and you “own” that access.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that this is just marketing wordplay, even though we agree that owning something vs owning a license to something are two different things.
ertmanius wrote: I guess this brings up the debate whether you can ever really “own” something intangible. The closest you get is having the ability to store a file on a computer drive, technically it doesn’t mean you “own” it but it doesn’t mean you have control over it. Aside from that you can only have rights to something intangible.

You do bring up a good point regarding owning media in a physical format. You can download HD copies of media purchased on the iTunes and store them on your computer until such time they become victims of their own obsolescence.
I think this is my problem with it though. It's marketed and understood as ownership, not licensing. People aren't really aware of the difference until it's too late.

And as it increases in popularity, true (legal) ownership options begin to evaporate. Physical media or DRM free digital options are less and less common.
Sr. Member
Jul 13, 2011
579 posts
302 upvotes
Ottawa
pdipps wrote: I think this is my problem with it though. It's marketed and understood as ownership, not licensing. People aren't really aware of the difference until it's too late.

And as it increases in popularity, true (legal) ownership options begin to evaporate. Physical media or DRM free digital options are less and less common.
I guess first let’s discuss whether it Is it really marketed and/or promoted as ownership or is it marketed as purchasing or buying. If it’s the latter then I’d like to point out you can purchase or buy services. You don’t own anything, but a service was rendered presumably for you benefit. One can argue that this is what is happening in the digital stores, and it wouldn’t surprise me that their legal paperwork might say something like that. Now if you are insisting that the stores are marketing it as ownership, that would be more problematic, but for example I can download an HD movie off of iTunes and store it on a drive somewhere, I am still possession of the file even if the file falls to obsolescence, much like a DVD will when DVD playing devices are no longer available, so it’s marginally arguable.

This concept of it being “understood” seems more like ignorance by the consumer and is a result of the emergence of a new market, the digital market. The consumer is purchasing something and while they understand it’s intangible they don’t quite realize it’s not an object.

The next issue you bring up is “true (legal) ownership”. Maybe the answer to that is that consumers have never had true legal ownership aside from the disc or other medium it was recorded on. Sure you can own a Batman the animated series disc, but you don’t really own any rights to it. Essentially what you are buying a piece of plastic with the legal license and right to play and use this discs. There is DRM, there are even limitations in how you can do this as seen with public performances. I am not saying there are no downsides to digital, there very much is, and it’s quite bit more treacherous for the consumer, but it’s just an evolution of what started with wax cylinders.

Btw I am not arguing my personal beliefs necessarily, so it’s not even a agree to disagree scenario. I am just participating in a discussion and addressing items being brought up. So I hope you don’t take it too personally.

Added note. I had a Puretracks account, remember them, well that store doesn’t exist anymore, so I do get the digital store issues and am weary of buying digital licenses and have been expanding my physical media collection for sometime.
Member
Sep 29, 2010
464 posts
618 upvotes
ertmanius wrote: I guess first let’s discuss whether it Is it really marketed and/or promoted as ownership or is it marketed as purchasing or buying. If it’s the latter then I’d like to point out you can purchase or buy services. You don’t own anything, but a service was rendered presumably for you benefit. One can argue that this is what is happening in the digital stores, and it wouldn’t surprise me that their legal paperwork might say something like that. Now if you are insisting that the stores are marketing it as ownership, that would be more problematic, but for example I can download an HD movie off of iTunes and store it on a drive somewhere, I am still possession of the file even if the file falls to obsolescence, much like a DVD will when DVD playing devices are no longer available, so it’s marginally arguable.

This concept of it being “understood” seems more like ignorance by the consumer and is a result of the emergence of a new market, the digital market. The consumer is purchasing something and while they understand it’s intangible they don’t quite realize it’s not an object.

The next issue you bring up is “true (legal) ownership”. Maybe the answer to that is that consumers have never had true legal ownership aside from the disc or other medium it was recorded on. Sure you can own a Batman the animated series disc, but you don’t really own any rights to it. Essentially what you are buying a piece of plastic with the legal license and right to play and use this discs. There is DRM, there are even limitations in how you can do this as seen with public performances. I am not saying there are no downsides to digital, there very much is, and it’s quite bit more treacherous for the consumer, but it’s just an evolution of what started with wax cylinders.

Btw I am not arguing my personal beliefs necessarily, so it’s not even a agree to disagree scenario. I am just participating in a discussion and addressing items being brought up. So I hope you don’t take it too personally.

Added note. I had a Puretracks account, remember them, well that store doesn’t exist anymore, so I do get the digital store issues and am weary of buying digital licenses and have been expanding my physical media collection for sometime.
Not offended at all! The discourse is polite.

I think what I'm trying to say is while what your saying is true, practically, isn't right. I think as consumers we're sold something one way, with a reasonable expectation that is different than the terms.

Like, take buying something on 8 track. I think there's a reasonable expectation that as long as you have the 8 track tape, a working 8 track player, and that you haven't completely consumed the tape through overuse or mishandling, that you'll be able to enjoy that 8 track tape for a reasonable period - this could be 10, 20, or even 50 years! You could also, due to the lack of DRM, backup/transfer it to another medium for personal use. You're in no way dependent on the seller to make sure your access is continued, and it can't be revoked by the seller at any time. We're aware of the risks and responsibilities of ownership and maintain our access to the product.

With digital, I think many people operate with the same understanding and expectation of ownership (though erroneously). But the fact is, when the DRM server shuts down or decides it can't license you anymore, then the content is gone. it can literally happen one day after you buy it. And we've seen it with Walmart's first music service, we've seen it with Amazon (ironically) pulling 1984 off kindles, we've seen it when Ultraviolet shut down, and countless other times. If your ability to access/use your product depends on DRM, then you don't own it. At best, you're renting the content with one annuity payment. And if there's no repercussions for companies that sell you perpetual licenses and then don't fulfill them, then that's just consumer hostile, in my opinion.
Sr. Member
Jul 13, 2011
579 posts
302 upvotes
Ottawa
I am glad, that we can have positive discourse. Actually this conversation is pushing me to rethink how even I, a physical media preference individual thinks about digital media. If you don't mind, I am going to address your points seperately.
pdipps wrote: Not offended at all! The discourse is polite.

I think what I'm trying to say is while what your saying is true, practically, isn't right. I think as consumers we're sold something one way, with a reasonable expectation that is different than the terms.

Like, take buying something on 8 track. I think there's a reasonable expectation that as long as you have the 8 track tape, a working 8 track player, and that you haven't completely consumed the tape through overuse or mishandling, that you'll be able to enjoy that 8 track tape for a reasonable period - this could be 10, 20, or even 50 years! You could also, due to the lack of DRM, backup/transfer it to another medium for personal use. You're in no way dependent on the seller to make sure your access is continued, and it can't be revoked by the seller at any time. We're aware of the risks and responsibilities of ownership and maintain our access to the product.
Here is the main problem with that argument "you'll be able to enjoy that 8 track tape for a reasonable period - this could be 10, 20, or even 50 years". This is essentially stipulating to a license not ownership. The main difference between how you outline this argument and the digital one is:
1) There is a physical vs economic/business mechanism that limits the reasonableness of the time frame.
2) What is considered "Reasonable" time frame, which is subjective and does seem to be getting shorter.
3) The risks of ownership are physical vs economic/business, and the burden of maintenance is on the consumer (physical) and business (digital). Example. a fire or flood, etc destroys your tape, however in a digital world you can still access that media.
pdipps wrote: With digital, I think many people operate with the same understanding and expectation of ownership (though erroneously). But the fact is, when the DRM server shuts down or decides it can't license you anymore, then the content is gone. it can literally happen one day after you buy it. And we've seen it with Walmart's first music service, we've seen it with Amazon (ironically) pulling 1984 off kindles, we've seen it when Ultraviolet shut down, and countless other times. If your ability to access/use your product depends on DRM, then you don't own it. At best, you're renting the content with one annuity payment. And if there's no repercussions for companies that sell you perpetual licenses and then don't fulfill them, then that's just consumer hostile, in my opinion.
I agree with almost all of that except it being "consumer hostile". I don't believe it is hostile, and I don't believe that is their intent. What you describe at the beginning is a fundamental misunderstanding that has occurred because it is a NEW market. You own access to playback the media until the service is no longer available or some other event happens. Does this mean you are more at the whims of business decisions, yes, but this is the trade off you must consider when purchasing the content. People are more than happy to accept these risks to take advantage of price, availability, and convenience. but there is trade-off that consumers must consider when purchasing any product or service, and they have to educate and protect themselves when making these decisions. At some point people have to be responsible for their own ignorance.
Sr. Member
User avatar
May 12, 2009
517 posts
300 upvotes
I'm not seeing the justice league cartoon collection. Is that US only?
Sr. Member
Feb 15, 2010
670 posts
622 upvotes
Surrey
Same deals in the Google Play store for those vested in that ecosystem
Member
Sep 29, 2010
464 posts
618 upvotes
ertmanius wrote: Here is the main problem with that argument "you'll be able to enjoy that 8 track tape for a reasonable period - this could be 10, 20, or even 50 years". This is essentially stipulating to a license not ownership.
Not quite. I also have the same physical restrictions for any product, like a lawnmower or television. I'm not buying a license to cut grass.
ertmanius wrote: The main difference between how you outline this argument and the digital one is:
1) There is a physical vs economic/business mechanism that limits the reasonableness of the time frame.
2) What is considered "Reasonable" time frame, which is subjective and does seem to be getting shorter.
3) The risks of ownership are physical vs economic/business, and the burden of maintenance is on the consumer (physical) and business (digital). Example. a fire or flood, etc destroys your tape, however in a digital world you can still access that media.
Close, but not quite what I mean. I think, that for me, it's all about *who* bears the rights and responsibilities of the continued use of the item. If the seller maintains control over your ability to use it, then it's not true ownership (in my opinion).

I'd even go further:
If you buy a car, and the car has a car key, but at their, the auto manufacturer can remotely change the positions of the pins in the ignition and make the key not work (but they leave you with possession of the key and the car), I'd argue that's not really "ownership" either. Sure, you "own" the two physical objects, but they're not usable for their universally understood intended purpose because some seller decided they didn't want you to use them anymore.

I think the reason I factored in "time" was to show that I understand that an item won't last forever, but there is some expectation that the cost of the item is relative to the time I expect to use it. When you rent something for a short window it's usually less expensive that owning it. But with DRM, you're renting it for an indefinite time, for near the cost of buying it. It's essentially a gamble.
ertmanius wrote: I agree with almost all of that except it being "consumer hostile". I don't believe it is hostile, and I don't believe that is their intent. What you describe at the beginning is a fundamental misunderstanding that has occurred because it is a NEW market. You own access to playback the media until the service is no longer available or some other event happens. Does this mean you are more at the whims of business decisions, yes, but this is the trade off you must consider when purchasing the content. People are more than happy to accept these risks to take advantage of price, availability, and convenience. but there is trade-off that consumers must consider when purchasing any product or service, and they have to educate and protect themselves when making these decisions. At some point people have to be responsible for their own ignorance.
Lol. this will become a long ideological discussion that goes way outside of the scope of this thread. I'll pass on commenting on this. Face With Tears Of Joy
Sr. Member
Jul 13, 2011
579 posts
302 upvotes
Ottawa
pdipps wrote: Not quite. I also have the same physical restrictions for any product, like a lawnmower or television. I'm not buying a license to cut grass.

Close, but not quite what I mean. I think, that for me, it's all about *who* bears the rights and responsibilities of the continued use of the item. If the seller maintains control over your ability to use it, then it's not true ownership (in my opinion).

I'd even go further:
If you buy a car, and the car has a car key, but at their, the auto manufacturer can remotely change the positions of the pins in the ignition and make the key not work (but they leave you with possession of the key and the car), I'd argue that's not really "ownership" either. Sure, you "own" the two physical objects, but they're not usable for their universally understood intended purpose because some seller decided they didn't want you to use them anymore.

I think the reason I factored in "time" was to show that I understand that an item won't last forever, but there is some expectation that the cost of the item is relative to the time I expect to use it. When you rent something for a short window it's usually less expensive that owning it. But with DRM, you're renting it for an indefinite time, for near the cost of buying it. It's essentially a gamble.

Lol. this will become a long ideological discussion that goes way outside of the scope of this thread. I'll pass on commenting on this. Face With Tears Of Joy
This is already and ideological discussion, so I guess we are done here as we are just going in circles anyways.

Couple last notes:
- Purchase =/= Own
- Poor unrelated analogies, different relationships between buyers and sellers.
- You do realize that there are already forms of DRM in DVD's and Blurays. That is a form of control over playback, the control just isnt centralized, so....

Either way thanks for the civil discussion.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 16, 2006
6154 posts
607 upvotes
SirLookout4Deals wrote: Same deals in the Google Play store for those vested in that ecosystem
Curious; what sort of DRM does google play have/use on its purchased videos?
Sr. Member
Jan 4, 2019
636 posts
393 upvotes
jungling wrote: great price. I paid WAY too much money for the special edition box set when it was finally released a few years ago... don't regret it at all... but still paid way too much money :)
I also felt like I really paid a lot for DC animated stuff... Too much
Sr. Member
Jan 4, 2019
636 posts
393 upvotes
matt2_m416 wrote: Justice League: The Complete Series is "complete" for the series that just focuses on the original 7! Ending when the Thanagarians come and Hawkgirl's secret is revealed (there are 52 episodes). S1 is 4:3, S2 is 16:9.

Justice League: Unlimited is the direct sequel where they open up the membership to anyone with a cape (there are 39 episodes). Can get confusing because sometimes the 1st 26 episodes are lumped into being called S1, and the last 13 are labelled S2 - other times each 13 episode run is a season (thereby having S1, S2 & S3). Whole thing is 16:9.

The 26th episode Epilogue was supposed to be the final episode (the network ordered another season which Timm and crew weren't expecting) and makes such a wonderful bookend to the Batman animated universe. If you haven't seen it, don't watch until you have watched Batman Beyond. I remember watching it with my jaw dropped the entire time and mind being blown as it gave the perfect ending to Batman Beyond (which was never allowed since it was cancelled) and perfectly wrapped Batman in the Animated Universe (Terry flying through the clouds just as Man-Bat did way back in the pilot/ test episode "On Leather Wings")!
I've only ever been able to watch these shows super out of order and always wants to watch it fully like how you explained seems amazing. If you could help me to know just the tv shows I'd need to watch to get this "complete book end" that's be appreciated!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 22, 2012
4396 posts
7369 upvotes
Toronto
pdipps wrote: This kind of awareness makes me happy.

If it can be taken away at the whim of some sort digital rights manager (or at their disintegration), you never actually own it.

Call me nuts, but I only buy hard copy or DRM-free. Too many bankruptcies, closures, mergers, obsolence, etc for me to every pay for a digital product that isn't DRM free.
I don't even own anything that plays discs anymore lol physical copies seem obsolete already

Top