[flagged]
The case for physical media ownership
271–280 of 392 posts
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#272I 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…
> people use 2factor authentication and Passkeys without respecting the same truth. Passkeys are still your keys. You can put them on hardware authenticators you control entirely offline separate of other services. You can store them in software vaults you manage.
that's not true. Passkeys have an optional remote attestation capability, which second parties can use to completely enforce aspects of your keys, such as them being non-transferrable or not usable without a screen touch etc.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#273But the apartments which people can afford has gotten smaller now and also with the rise of the minimalistic culture, I have no space to put movie and games discs. I am ok with renting media. Like most people I don't re-watch movies and re-play single player games often. imo it's just free market at play here which happens to provide value to the companies more than the consumers.
> imo it's just free market at play here which happens to provide value to the companies more than the consumers
It's not clear that there is large value, to consumers as a whole, to physical media or DRM-free media.
I am aware of the benefits, but the few cases of "losing your licence" are a rounding error, unimportant to many, and maybe even better than their success at durably storing their own physical media or DRM-free digital media.
I exclusively (?) buy games from GOG. It's important to me. I wish it were the norm, but I just don't think it's actually important to others. Perhaps we might imagine some dystopian future where a temporary licence was the only option, but ultimately media providers face competition from other leisure activities. They are incentivised to make it less onerous, and in practice today, it is!
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#274I'm curious what would take for regular people (i.e. people off HN) to realize what is pointed in the article is a real problem. In my experience, every time I mention this I'm labeled as: nostalgic old guy, Don Quixote wannabe, tinfoil hat supporter, pirate nerd who doesn't understand people just want convenience. I've seen people bit by losing access to purchased content shrug and say "yeah, that's bad isn't it? at…
There probably is something about how you come across. It's a hard sell when any principles you hold around intellectual property or commerce sound like post rationalizations for a grudge or a hoarding hobby or that you think people who stream are stupid--I experience one or more of these in typical IRL conversations about this. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a sensible-sounding rhetorical style that's more effective. And you do kind of have to start with understanding that, for most people, these purchases or subscriptions don't mean much.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people use 2factor authentication and Passkeys without respecting the same truth. Passkeys are still your keys. You can put them on hardware authenticators you control entirely offline separate of other services. You can store them in software vaults you manage.
that's not true. Passkeys have an optional remote attestation capability, which second parties can use to completely enforce aspects of your keys, such as them being non-transferrable or not usable without a screen touch etc.
This doesn't change the fact it can still be your physical device that remains in your personal control.
I can stash them on a yubikey or similar device and still meet those requirements. It's still only my device, it doesn't rely on other services, etc.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that how things work at valve? I thought employees do whatever they want and there's minimal structure.
Gabe allegedly (nobody knows because it's a private company) owns 50.1%, it's not majority employee owned. It's possible he might turn it over to the employees or some kind of co-op style board but who knows if he's offered the right price by a cashed up investor. He's got children to consider and could reasonably want to set them and his grandchildren up for generational wealth.
Gabe Newell is estimated at $11 billion net worth. I think his grandchildren are already set.
Granted, his money, he can do as he pleases, but the Newell dynasty already exists, regardless of what happens to his shares.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, of course it's easier to pirate it. The problem is that its unethical (and illegal). That you find it inconvenient to pay for things you want is not a valid justification.
> The problem is that its unethical The article is basically a list of examples of how companies that offer legal options often use unethical business practices (sometimes to the point where they should be illegal). I don't agree with all of their examples, such as conflating removing access to a purchased title with removing a title from a streaming service, but I can certainly understand why people are frustrated.
My issue is not understanding "why people are frustrated", it's that people think that frustration entitles them to take things they do not need from artists and creators who are trying to make a living.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm aware, and I'm choosing GOG when I can now, though even then I see phoning home (or attempts to) happening (opensnitch is useful for that https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch ) - I've paid for some titles 2-3x over which is frustrating, admittedly I don't have the physical media from the first time which is on me, but it's frustrating seeing single player games wanting to phone home
Is the GOG client the thing phoning home? I've refused to install it so far and I've just been downloading the installers directly.
No, I'm not using the gog client (I'm on Linux). It's things like the Witcher 3's launcher.
It's the steam version, but Crusader Kings also hangs for a bit if you block it's network access
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK Steam really has three things you could consider part of the DRM strategy. - The Steamworks DRM, which is a lightweight EXE packer. Seems about as simple as UPX. Presumably it goes and checks that you own the app ID via Steam RPC on startup. - Checking that the user owns the app ID via the API. A simple check that's pretty simple to bypass using a Steam emulator. - And then finally the ticketing system, which a…
ultimately it means that all of the games in your library will stop working as soon as your computer has been offline for whatever length of time steam feels is "too long". I recommend getting a cracked copy of every game in your library to make sure that you will still have access to what you paid for if steam shuts down or you lose your internet connection.
Well, the Steamworks DRM simply poses no threat: a skiddie can crack that one. There are tools that can do it automatically. For stuff that depends on the Steam API, you can probably keep a copy of one of the popular emulators; normally it's enough to drop them next to the EXE. If Valve disappeared tomorrow, I could go into my steam apps folder and fix the problem immediately.
Having to crack things at all just to play them is bad. But, if it's easy to do it yourself, it is still better than going the route of downloading stuff from dubious sources. There's a whole ecosystem you have to understand to know what you can trust with piracy and not everyone knows where to look.
For the ticketing system, it's kind of a non-issue because that's a server-side mechanism. If a game requires that, it requires a server and won't work offline at all anyway.
For Denuvo, SecuROM, Themida, VMProtect and others... Yes, that stuff is an actual threat, but Valve doesn't make people use those. (Valve also doesn't make people use Steamworks for DRM either, and there are in fact games in my library whose Steam depots are free of any DRM at all and happily run outside of Steam with no Steam needed.)
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal reality is that you probably purchased a license, tied to your PlayStation account, and revocable at any time for any reason. You don't buy a movie, you buy access to watch it as many times as you want during the period in which it is licensed to you. This is, of course, bullshit; this doesn't or can't apply to a physical DVD, or even a DRM free digital copy, so it is a measurable step backwards for consume…
These content agreements would have end dates when they are negotiated so they should be required to disclose those at the time you "purchase your license". If they renegotiate and extend the arrangement then update the UI with the new date. Sony couldn't seriously believe they were going to be able to renew these licenses forever given how many streaming services are out there who need to fill their catalogues. Inst…
> they should be required to disclose those at the time you "purchase your license".
they probably do disclose it, but it's in the intentionally verbose and obtuse 20 page T&C that no one reads when they make the purpose