Comment on Sony Steals Customers' Purchased Content - Piracy is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED!

• snaggen@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If I give you the impression that you buy a gold bar, but in reality you get a cheap gold plated metal bar, then that is fraud. It doesn’t matter if it looks and feel the same.

  source

  • arc@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.

    Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

    That may be but it’s what these services are doing and will continue to do until lawmakers enact digital property laws along the lines that I suggest.

    source

    • Skyzyx@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Copyright is literally the definition of “who has the rights to determine how copies are made.” If you were to believe most people who publish content on YouTube, you might think that copyright means authorship, but it does not.

      When you purchase a movie on Blu-ray, you don’t own the film. You own a piece of plastic which represents a license to watch the film. But you can’t turn around, make copies, and start selling those copies without violating The film studios “right to determine how copies are made.“

      The only difference between a physical Blu-ray (license) and a digital license is that digital license is revocable. It’s not fair. It isn’t just. But it’s literally part of the contract that you agreed to.

      There’s a separate discussion to be had around “fair use.” Backing up stuff that you have paid money for does fall into “fair use,“ unless third-party encryption is involved. Because it is against the law to circumvent encryption. (Unless, of course, you’re the FBI.)

      This is the only characteristic that separates ripping CDs from ripping DVDs — CDs missed the boat on encryption.

      I’m not necessarily arguing for or against anything here other than to simply explain how it currently works (in the US, at least). There’s a separate discussion to be had about perpetual versus revocable licenses after money has been exchanged. Beyond that, there’s a discussion to be about how to protect the intellectual property of the things that you spent millions of dollars creating; and how that fares with the consumers of said intellectual property.

      These latter discussions are far more nuanced than most Internet commenters are qualified to decide.

      source

      • snaggen@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I can sell a disk to whoever I want. I can lend my disk to a friend. I can play my disk in any player I want. Heck, I’m even allowed to crack the copy right on the disk if that is needed to play it on my device. I have the right to backup my disk to a hard drive.

        Don’t pretend Buying a movie online is anything close to buying it on a physical medium. It doesn’t make you look good.

        source
      • arc@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I never said anything about copyright giving you right to copy movies. But if I own a CD, blu-ray or a book, I physically OWN that blu-ray or book. I can stick it on a shelf, lend it to someone, give it away, burn it, sell it on e-bay. It doesn’t entitle me to duplicate it, but the media is mine, as is my right of ownership in law.

        Conversely if I buy a digital movie on Amazon (or any other provider) I’ve bought a license to it. Next time I go view it, the movie might have gone. Or maybe Amazon just shitcans the entire service (as it has before). Or maybe they just decide to ban my account for whatever reason. Or maybe they don’t like that I’ve moved to another continent. Whatever the reason I have no recourse. Nor can I sell my license, lend it, or anything else.

        That’s the problem I’m talking about. There is no reason that when I buy a movie from Amazon or another provider it has to be this way. Instead I should buy the movie, and have a copy of movie and a token that shows my ownership of it. They can watermark the mkv to bind it to the token and me and copyright holders might come after me if I unlawfully share the file. But I should be able to sell my copy if I want. I should be able to borrow a copy from a digital library. I should be able to do things equivalent to a physical copy.

        source
• zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I would have more sympathy for that argument if the same was applied to the government regulating land and taxes. It ain’t your land or your money, you have it on lease from the government so stop bitching and render unto Caesar.

  source