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

81–90 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#81

Post by Aaargh20318 »

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…

> due to our content licensing agreements, you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content

So when they 'sold' the content, they were already aware that they were selling something with an expiry date. Why would you even agree to a license to resell something with a time limit?

There should be some kind of law that says that any license agreement intended for reselling to the public should be a perpetual license.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#82

Post by ryandrake »

blfr wrote: post #3

Just pirate it. They can't tell you this but there's a quagmire of rights, licenses, agreements, treaties... and you can untangle this Goridan Knot by just pirating, especially media, for your own use. There are pixel perfect 4k drm-free rips out there made by people who poured thousands of hours into understanding codecs. They will work on any platform, forever, you can stream them or play offline. These rips can be…

Another thing that always needs pointing out: that ad-free, copyable, unencumbered, pixel perfect 4K drm-free rip with multiple language audio streams, hand crafted accurate subtitles, chapter tags, and embedded poster art cannot be bought from the movie industry at any price. That's why piracy is a product problem, not a price problem. The industry refuses to produce and offer the superior product, so regardless of the price, piracy is the only way to get it.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#83

Post by drooby »

dml2135 wrote: post #75
drooby wrote: post #6

I mean.. this claim is just untrue. "Owning" something is a social construct defined by law. Our entire society exists because we own things we cannot hold, that is, intellectual property. What this post is actually pointing out is that intellectual property that has transferrable physical representation has more value to the consumer . And intellectual property that does not have transferable physical representation…

> but every time we do that we also take from the artist No, every time we do that, we do not give to the artist. But not giving is not the same as taking.

Well, we take from the artist a motivation for a buyer to purchase their work.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#84

Post by shantara »

My go to example (that unfortunately wasn’t mentioned in the article) is the removal of a game called Oxenfree from everyone who bought a permanent license for it on Itch.io. This is the most egregious example I’m aware of, as the game wasn’t merely made unavoidable for new purchases, but removed from the players’ libraries. It’s not a theoretical example of what could possibly happen, but an actual precedent.

https://delistedgames.com/oxenfree/

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#85

Post by hdgvhicv »

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…

So is the refund they give for the original amount or inflation adjusted?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#86

Post by zephen »

microgpt wrote: post #54
zephen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> When your device sees that it is revoked by any disc, it bricks itself.

Do you have a citation for that? I don't believe it, partly because I can imagine the sort of class action it would engender.

There are reports of bricked players on the internet, and unbricking, but those mostly seem to have been caused by bad firmware updates.

The wikipedia page on AACS only mentions revocations affecting future content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#87

Post by nickthegreek »

simianwords wrote: post #63
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> "owning tangible things is just nicer - there's no better way to put it > Would you be able to explain why you liked owning things that isn't already explained by my points 1) 2) 3) 4)? Your point 4 may have covered everything, but it didn't actually explain anything. So it's a bit unfair to be asking jgorn to explain, because you didn't actually explain either.

I would guess its a bit unfair to call me young and then just repeat what I said instead of adding anything novel to the discussion

Are you young? If so, why would it be unfair to state that fact?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#88

Post by al_borland »

I think DRM and streaming are the issues here, not digital vs physical.

For example, I can buy DRM free music from the iTunes Store, download the files, and they’re mine. I can play them back on anything that supports the file type, convert the files, back them up, etc.

Meanwhile, if I check a book out from the library, I can hold it, it’s physical, but it’s not mine and I can’t do whatever I want to it.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#89

Post by nullhole »

knaik94 wrote: post #44

I agree with the sentiment implied by the author, but I would reword it slightly. If you don't have the freedom to share something, you don't own it. I disagree with the interpretation that it needs to be held physically. Digital ownership is still ownership. I go out of my way to find music on Bandcamp, games on GOG, and rip movies myself using MakeMKV. I wish I could encourage people to continue embracing physical…

> I disagree with the interpretation that it needs to be held physically. Digital ownership is still ownership. I go out of my way to find music on Bandcamp, games on GOG, and rip movies myself using MakeMKV.

Files on a hard disk that you own are still files that you physically own. The only difference between those files and, say, a DVD, is that the encoding is more space-efficient.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#90

Post by Henchman21 »

archerx wrote: post #35
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…

That “Thank you” comes off as a strong “Fuck you”.

As an ex-Sony employee, that is deeply held cultural belief: Sony doesn’t do anything wrong. It is absolutely a fuck you.
Post reply on HN