Skip to main contentSkip to solution

In the summer of 2022, subscribers to the US streaming service HBO MAX were alarmed to discover that dozens of the platform's offerings from the Covid-themed heist thriller Locked Down to the recent remake of The Witches – had been quietly removed from the service. The news seemed like vindication to those who had long warned that streaming was more about controlling access to the cultural commons than expanding it, as did reports (since denied by the show's creators) that Netflix had begun editing old episodes of Stranger Things to retroactively improve their visual effects.

What's less clear is whether the commonly prescribed cure for these cultural ills – a return to the material pleasures of physical media – is the right one. While the makers of Blu-ray discs claim they have a shelf life of 100 years, such statistics remain largely theoretical until they come to pass, and are dependent on storage conditions, not to mention the continued availability of playback equipment. The humble DVD has already proved far less resilient, with many early releases already beginning to deteriorate in quality. Digital movie purchases provide even less security. Any film "bought" on iTunes could disappear if you move to another territory with a different rights agreement and try to redownload it. It's a bold new frontier in the commodification of art: the birth of the product recall. After a man took to Twitter to bemoan losing access to Cars 2 after moving from Canada to Australia, Apple clarified that users who downloaded films to their devices would retain permanent access to those downloads, even if they relocated to a hemisphere where the content was subject to a different set of rights agreements. Thanks to the company's ironclad digital rights management technology, however, such files cannot be moved or backed up, locking you into watching with your Apple account.

Anyone who does manage to acquire Digital Rights Management free (DRM-free) copies of their favourite films must nonetheless grapple with ever-changing file format standards, not to mention data decay – the gradual process by which electronic information slowly but surely corrupts. Only the regular migration of files from hard drive to hard drive can delay the inevitable, in a Sisyphean battle against the ravages of digital time.

In a sense, none of this is new. Charlie Chaplin burned the negative of his 1926 film A Woman of the Sea as a tax write-off. Many more films have been lost through accident, negligence or plain indifference. During a heat wave in July 1937, a Fox film vault in New Jersey burned down, destroying a majority of the silent films produced by the studio.

Back then, at least, cinema was defined by its ephemerality: the sense that a film was as good as gone once it left your local cinema. Today, with film studios keen to stress the breadth of their back catalogues (or to put in Hollywood terms, the value of their IPs), audiences may start to wonder why those same studios seem happy to set the vault alight themselves if it'll help next quarter's numbers.

"Netflix had begun editing old episodes of Stranger Things to retroactively improve their visual effects." What is the purpose of this example used in the passage?

Solution

βœ… Correct Option: 4

We need to find the specific purpose of the Stranger Things example in the passage's argument.

From passage: "The news seemed like vindication to those who had long warned that streaming was more about controlling access to the cultural commons than expanding it, as did reports (since denied by the show's creators) that Netflix had begun editing old episodes of Stranger Things to retroactively improve their visual effects."

The key word here is "vindication" -> this means proof that someone was right. The author is saying both the HBO Max removals AND the Stranger Things editing served as vindication -> they proved that people who already had concerns were correct.

So the thought process is: Some people already worried about streaming services -> These incidents happened -> These incidents validated/justified those pre-existing worries.


Elimination Process:

🟠 Option 1 -> scope-error -> talks about "art in digital age" generally, but the passage uses this example specifically to validate concerns about streaming services as custodians, not just about digital art changing

🟠 Option 2 -> context-shift -> mentions "controlling cultural commons" which is the broader theme the passage discusses, but not the specific purpose of the Stranger Things example within that theme

🟠 Option 3 -> misinterprets -> says "unsubstantiated reports leading to distrust" but the passage presents these as evidence supporting existing concerns, not as creating baseless distrust

🟒 Option 4 -> correct -> perfectly matches "vindication to those who had long warned" -> the example justifies the fears of people who already didn't trust streaming services as reliable preservers of cultural works

The confusion students often have is between Options 2 and 4. Option 2 talks about the big picture theme, while Option 4 talks about the specific job this example does within that theme -> it provides evidence to back up existing worries.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question