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

161–170 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#161

Post by wilg »

ooterness wrote: post #94
geor9e wrote: post #79

As long as we're nitpicking every sense of the word "own", the strongest legal sense means you're the copyright holder, and every sense downstream of that is some lesser license. Buying a disc is a license to view the intellectual property, subject to various restrictions like only showing it within your personal home.

If the disc is an abstract license, surely the seller will replace the disc if it's scratched. I already bought the license, so what is the real purpose of the physical token? Somehow the concept of ownership has been twisted to so that obligations only flow in one direction. Rules for thee, not for me.

The point OP is making is that it's not the concept of ownership that has been twisted, there just never was ownership of media beyond owning the actual copyright. Everything else is licensing.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#162

Post by wilg »

cassianoleal wrote: post #154
geor9e wrote: post #79

As long as we're nitpicking every sense of the word "own", the strongest legal sense means you're the copyright holder, and every sense downstream of that is some lesser license. Buying a disc is a license to view the intellectual property, subject to various restrictions like only showing it within your personal home.

> various restrictions like only showing it within your personal home Are you implying that lending the disc to a friend so they can watch in their own home is forbidden? Or taking the disc to the friend's place to watch together?

No, those aren't the restrictions. But there are restrictions. First-sale doctrine allows lending. But you are not allowed to play the movie in, say, a restaurant, theater, or other public place.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#163

Post by downsplat »

The point is not about what it means exactly to "own" something, you'll get plenty of noise discussion around that one.

But if I care about some piece of digital art enough to pay for it, I sure want a non-DRM copy to sit on my hd at the end of the transaction. If the store won't supply, the pirate sites will.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#164

Post by nik282000 »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #116

The sad thing is that it's also true for money. Cash that you can hold in your hand it's yours, whereas the cash that you own at the bank is a IOU subject to the contract that you sign .

Cash in hand can be rendered equally worthless by an adverserial government that drives down its value by printing more.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#165

Post by thayne »

brookst wrote: post #50
carra wrote: post #28

This article is quite right, but there's even more to it than that. Why should we need to hold ANY kind of relationship with the seller/provider of an article we bought? You certainly don't need a bookstore account to buy a paperback book. Nor do they get to keep your contact information. You get your article and a ticket. They get your money. End of story.

Goods / services. You probably need a relationship to use a warranty. The tension is that digital goods are somewhere between. Especially when the delivery mechanism is streaming, and/or DRM keys that need to be renewed. Sure, many people want a one-time download with no promise or obligation to re-deliver it in the future. Then again, many people don’t want the burden of caring for bytes for the rest of their lives…

> DRM keys that need to be renewed

The solution to this is to not have DRM

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#166

Post by trelane »

nullhole wrote: post #89
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.

> The only difference between those files and, say, a DVD, is that the encoding is more space-efficient.

Also that it's (depending on the format) perhaps not illegal to use the content in the file wit any viewer you choose.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#167

Post by alt227 »

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…

Why isn't there a class action lawsuit from all the people who bought studio canal content on the Playstation store and now cannot watch it?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#168

Post by alt227 »

wilg wrote: post #159
xandrius wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The battle is alive and well, pirating has never been easier and of this high quality. Support the creators however you want but go foster an environment around your friends and family that there are alternatives to paying evil companies who will remove your access to content willy nilly.

You actually have to support the creators however THEY want if you want access, not however YOU want. I suspect you're not actually supporting all the creators of the things you watch via piracy!

Creators are often happy that their art is being watched regardless of the source and whether they are making money from it.

https://www.screendaily.com/news/piracy-is-the-most-successf...

Its the money behind them that cares about restricting access to bleed every penny they can out of it.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#169

Post by autoexec »

mnahkies wrote: post #149
jchw wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sony can only take it away because you didn't own it. I digitally own SimCity 3000 Unlimited from Gog. The copy lives on my NAS. The NAS could break, sure, but so can a CD. Can I hold it? Well, sort of. The same way I can back up my physical CDs to a hard disk, I can also back up digital things I truly own to a CD/DVD/BD or other media. As long as the thing I'm holding in my hand is all I need to be able to make use…

When I brought half life 2 there was a lag of about 2-4 years before I could play it for the first time - I didn't read the fine print, and on a dial up connection I couldn't get past the steam client updating in a reasonable amount of time, mind you I was able to download much larger Linux ISOs over time frames of a month+ through resumable downloads. Not really an issue these days but it certainly was back in the d…

Steam's DRM is still an issue today and it means that you have to get cracked copies of most of the games you paid for in your library if you expect to ever own them. I spent some months without an internet connection only to find the steam games I'd been playing offline just fine suddenly refused to launch until I allowed steam to phone home to grant me permission to play the games I paid for. Steam could go out of business at any time and all your games would simply stop working.
Post reply on HN