Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The deception of “buying” digital movies

worldofmatthew.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 565 posts

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#451

Post by pontifier »

boros2me wrote: post #36

One idea I keep thinking about (which I'm sure interferes with some sort of copyright law) is: 1. User buys a physical copy of a movie/music 2. Instead of sending the disc to their house, it's sent to a storage facility 3. In the storage facility a digital backup is made and uploaded to a cloud storage 4. User is given access to the backup which they can watch/listen to 5. User would be the owner of said physical cop…

This is what I'm attempting to revive with Murfie/Crossies.

Right now, I'm dealing with unrelated problems with my warehouse so the service is only partly functional. In my opinion the basic model, with true ownership, should be completely legal under copyright law.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#452

Post by pontifier »

kgwgk wrote: post #51
boros2me wrote: post #36

One idea I keep thinking about (which I'm sure interferes with some sort of copyright law) is: 1. User buys a physical copy of a movie/music 2. Instead of sending the disc to their house, it's sent to a storage facility 3. In the storage facility a digital backup is made and uploaded to a cloud storage 4. User is given access to the backup which they can watch/listen to 5. User would be the owner of said physical cop…

https://www.wired.com/2011/10/streaming-movie-service-zediva...

A key problem with zediva was that they were only offering rentals, not ownership. Ownership of a particular copy gives you rights that you don't have when renting.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#453

Post by cgrealy »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #256
drstewart wrote: post #27

How big of a problem even is this? Serious question: who buys digital movies? I don't really know anyone who even buys movies at all anymore, but if they do it's likely they prefer a physical copy anyway. There's just so much content out there that the number of people that even care to rewatch a movie they've seen feels like it's really low.

Content is not fungible. When I want to watch Terminator (1984) and nothing else, then no amount of having other killer-robot films on your platform will satisfy this want. As to why people who buy prefer to buy physical? Because there's actual ownership. I haven't even as much as investigated my options for buying 4K content, because I am 100% sure it doesn't exist in a form that's not hooked into some DRM system (A…

> With physical content, at least you retain the control.

To an extent, yes. Practically, you have control. Legally, you have still purchased a licence to view that content on that media in limited scenarios.

You can't (legally) copy it, or display it in public (for free or money).

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#454

Post by rndmize »

Xeoncross wrote: post #255
senko wrote: post #215

Copyright, as it exists in the 21st century, is a scam. It does not protect the artists, the creative works, or the little guy. It is a product of decades' worth of lobbying by very rich and powerful organizations and megacorps. I'm not against the idea of a copyright. An artist has the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and creative works do have value. However, the original idea of copyright has been bent, b…

Does the US have any state or federal laws that don't benefit the wealthy at least as much as a regular citizen? As far as I'm aware, even laws for the small business play into the favor of larger corporations either directly or via auxiliary laws.

This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? The vast majority of regulatory apparatus, which is generally implemented when wealthy/owner class people cause damage to employees/poor people to a degree that political action is taken (NLRB, FDA, OSHA, EPA, CFPB, etc.)? The great volume of services provided to all citizens, for free - weather forecasting, GPS, state/federal parks, federally funded research; laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc.

Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist, or that the wealthy don't have advantages in getting laws passed that favor their interests, but there's a great deal of stuff that gets done that is specifically for the poor or the average citizen.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#455

Post by mixmastamyk »

rthomas6 wrote: post #279
mixmastamyk wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handbrake, chose a profile, use a script, use a more efficient codec. Doesn’t take much manual work but computer chugs for a while.

Would this work for Dolby Vision et al?

It uses ffmpeg underneath which can handle a large number of formats, in theory at least. You might have to sacrifice some esoteric features however.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#456

Post by titzer »

eddieroger wrote: post #383
awiesenhofer wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Scrubs" being scrubbed of a particularly offensive joke Which one?

Seemingly this: https://etcanada.com/news/660724/scrubs-blackface-episodes-b...

It wasn't that, it was a one-liner by McGinley's character that just got inexplicably stricken.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#457

Post by zeruch »

FalconSensei wrote: post #290
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright law was created by and exclusively for lawyers and the oligarchs who can afford them on retainer. Just look at what Disney has done to us and you'll lose all sympathy for the mouse: https://i.imgur.com/58gB0hq.jpg

on the other hand, I don't think Mickey should go public domain.

I do.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#458

Post by anikom15 »

jacobr1 wrote: post #341
forrestthewoods wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think a reasonable form of copyright law would look like?

10-year extensions with graduated costs. You get first 10 years upon publication, for free automatically, or for a nominal filing fee to register your claim. The next 10 years costs (extending to 20 total) now costs a meaningful fee. Maybe a fraction of sales structured like a license owned by the public/government, maybe a known schedule of fees based on the type of work, but either way it is a non-trivial sum. Then…

Copyright is a right. Having to pay for it sounds absurd.

I have a much simpler solution: copyright terms are fourteen years from date of publication. There are no extensions.

It could even be a lot shorter nowadays. Nearly all media gets nearly all of its profit in the first year. A lot of commercial software goes out of date in a few months rather than yearly releases.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#459

Post by orthecreedence »

rndmize wrote: post #454
Xeoncross wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the US have any state or federal laws that don't benefit the wealthy at least as much as a regular citizen? As far as I'm aware, even laws for the small business play into the favor of larger corporations either directly or via auxiliary laws.

This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state? The vast majority of regulatory apparatus, which is generally implemented when wealthy/owner class people cause damage to employees/poor people to a degree that political action is taken (NLRB, FDA, OSHA, EPA, CFPB, etc.)? The great volume of services provided to all citizens, for free - weather forecasting, GP…

> This seems like an odd question to me. Social security? Medicare? Free education? The entire welfare state?

These benefit the wealthy. They are used the quell the thirst for wealthy blood that would otherwise be prevalent. They are crumbs thrown to the masses to keep them from revolting during uncertain times.

> The vast majority of regulatory apparatus

I'd argue most regulatory bodies are captured agenies in the US. The delineation between state and industry has been fading for decades. They either look the other way, or overregulate to choke out any competition that would unseat existing players. Regulation in the US is almost entirely in service to capital.

> weather forecasting, GPS

Again, these are likely more in service to the economy (capital) than normal citizens.

> state/federal parks

Fair enough. I'd add libraries to this list as well. These institutions are actually kind of an odd exception to America's complete obsession with privatization, consumerism, and capital.

> laws like the CRA, VRA or ADA which help those disadvantaged by racism, disability, etc.

Again, fair enough.

> federally funded research

Yes, often funded by the citizens such that private industry can sell the result without recompense.

> Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist

It's the the rule, not the exception.

Re: The deception of “buying” digital movies

#460

Post by anikom15 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #230
abraxas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately geolocking isn't new or unique to the pure bits movie format. DVDs were regionally locked as well and even analog media like VHS tapes used color encoding formats that were specific in different regions (NTSC vs PAL vs SECAM). That said, the situation is quite a bit worse now as the modern DRM is harder to circumvent and geolocking more granular than ever before. But the intent to lock us down was alway…

To be fair, NTSC/PAL/SECAM were political decisions made by governments at the start of the television era, well before modern copyright maximalism had got its boots on.

They were not political decisions made by governments. They were technical standards developed by standards bodies primarily made up of engineers. Then government institutions like the FCC adopted them for their countries.
Post reply on HN