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

The case for physical media ownership

dervis.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#51

Post by microgpt »

jfengel wrote: post #20
andai wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>our entire society exists because of intellectual property Are you sure that's true? If so, in which century did it start being true?

From the beginning. Ownership is intangible. It exists only because of the collective consent to laws. The difference between ownership of a physical object and ownership of an intellectual one is a matter of conventional. It's easier to define ownership of an object that is excludable, but that's human convenience, not a physical law.

So Neanderthals had copyright law and if they didn't, their society would have fallen apart?

Is that why it did fall apart?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#54

Post by microgpt »

zephen wrote: post #36
mr_toad wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blu ray discs can only (legally) be played in licensed devices, and some of the decryption keys can and have been revoked.

Key revocation only affects future disc releases.

AIUI every disc is mastered with the latest revocation list. When your device sees that it is revoked by any disc, it bricks itself.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#55

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cube00 wrote: post #26

Sony's one sentence notice is pretty grim considering how much money they made from these sales (sorry licensing). From September 1, 2026, due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content from Studio Canal, and it will be removed from your video library. Thank you, PlayStation Store [1] At least in 2023 it was two sentences and then they somehow negotiate…

I purchased it, and you're taking it away? Then either I didn't actually purchase it (despite the word appearing in the notice), or you're stealing it from me.

Which is it, Sony?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#56

Post by AnimalMuppet »

stavros wrote: post #40
foobarbecue wrote: post #14

I bought a Kindle copy of Steven Baxter's novel Ring. One day, I decided to re-read it and downloaded it to a new device. It had changed from the English edition to the German translation! Amazon eventually admitted that this was some kind of glitch, but they were uninterested in fixing it. I got a refund, but there was no way for me to read the book.

Arr, aye there be!

No need for piracy. Since they gave him a refund, he could just buy a copy.

If they refused to refund his money, then... yeah, it does make you want to hoist the black flag, doesn't it?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#57

Post by TacticalCoder »

simianwords wrote: post #12

I don't buy the strange fascination with owning physical things. The other side of this is something no one speaks about: Spotify, youtube made it possible for me to listen to _any_ music from anywhere. This kind of profound open access to art should not just be dismissed. The concerns about price increase are laughable because without spotify I wouldn't be exposed to this music in the first place. I think the obsess…

With Qobuz (lossless music streaming), you can both pay a subscription and buy individual songs, without DRM. You then own those, supposedly forever (at least good luck getting my songs out of my backups, or preventing my airgapped/offline computers from sending them to my stereo amp).

I think it's a good middle ground: you pay a subscription, artists at least get a little something (the biggest issue for artists is the unlimited amount of fully AI-generate slop music), and you get to have actual DRM-free files.

Ripping physical music CDs to bit-perfect FLAC files --and automatically verifying with online databases of other people's rips that your rip is instead bit-perfect-- is kinda a big thing in the audiophile world too.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#58

Post by stavros »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #56
stavros wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arr, aye there be!

No need for piracy. Since they gave him a refund, he could just buy a copy . If they refused to refund his money, then... yeah, it does make you want to hoist the black flag, doesn't it?

Since he already owns a copy, I don't think he can buy another, unless it's a physical book.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#59

Post by Bender »

I agree with the intent of the article but for what it's worth does not have to be physical. I have digital music and movies that can not be remotely disabled, censored, changed to fit current societies norms. The problem is when the dependency is on servers that belong to someone else or are controlled by someone else. I can self host my own instances of Ampache or just plain old HTTPS with auto-index enabled or SFTP or anything of my choosing. I qualify those as ownership assuming the digital media does not have some embedded code to reference a remote server and anything resembling an embedded license is stripped out. For sure I will hold onto my CD's and DVD's forever. I regret selling off a lot of vinyl.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#60

Post by Peanuts99 »

simianwords wrote: post #12

I don't buy the strange fascination with owning physical things. The other side of this is something no one speaks about: Spotify, youtube made it possible for me to listen to _any_ music from anywhere. This kind of profound open access to art should not just be dismissed. The concerns about price increase are laughable because without spotify I wouldn't be exposed to this music in the first place. I think the obsess…

No. 2 is enough though surely, I've had multiple incidences now where a series we've been watching on a streaming platform has disappeared without warning, running my own little media server alleviates that entirely.
Post reply on HN