Right now even physical things have digital interlocking. Example you might purchase a watch but it requires you to purchase a subscription for it to function.
It is just the way most of the things are.
The case for physical media ownership
281–290 of 392 posts
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#282Right now even physical things have digital interlocking. Example you might purchase a watch but it requires you to purchase a subscription for it to function. It is just the way most of the things are.
A lot of cars also suffer from this.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steam's DRM is entirely optional. It is up to the game publishers to use it.
> Steam's DRM is entirely optional. Not to the user it isn't.
The reason this is a worthwhile point is because it means games on Steam are not automatically DRM-encumbered and the steam apps folder for the game may just work as-is.
How big of a difference this makes definitely depends on the kinds of games you play. Obviously the triple A games on Steam are, with rare exception, DRM'd to the gills. The older games and indie games, a lot less so, sometimes none at all.
You have to check of course, but probably a good idea to do so before trying to find cracked/pirated versions.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#284Since all the sheep are thinking "why do I need this junk wasting space in my attic or worse in my living room shelves? I need to get rid off it all as quick as possible, so I have more room for my mega inch TV with Netflix and so on...", I get those collection for almost nothing if I'm lucky. I resell the stuff I don't need and even make a profit.
Expanding your archive of physical media wasn't easier because of the people falling for the streaming trap.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#285This list is extremely biased and only lists negatives and fails to argue anything.
You're free to write your own media-conglomerate boot-licking post if don't agree.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#286I 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…
> If you don't have the freedom to share something, you don't own it.
How does pre-DRM copyright affect the picture here? Do you mean it's been impossible to own copyrighted content since the inception of copyright?
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#287Just 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…
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.
Mind talking me through the ethical problems of copyright infringement? I'm not a fan of copyright in general, and from that perspective, I fail to see the problem in copying files.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#288Earlier 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.
Mind talking me through the ethical problems of copyright infringement? I'm not a fan of copyright in general, and from that perspective, I fail to see the problem in copying files.
I prefer the artists who make the work I enjoy not to starve. That is a moral/ethical principle.
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#289> A Blu-ray disc, game cartridge, or printed book generally cannot be removed from a shelf by a remote policy change. It may not be able to be removed from a shelf, but if it is protected by DRM they can still remotely revoke your ability to consume it, or prevent you from consuming it to begin with (for example geolocking on blu-ray disks). And in some cases a game cartridge, or other medium for software (including…
Exactly. Nintendo doesn't sell physical games at all anymore.
That's not true, not all games are Game-Key cards, see https://www.dekudeals.com/switch-2-physical-games
Re: The case for physical media ownership
#290Earlier 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.
Passkeys (as defined in the spec) by definition don't.
Non-passkey WebAuthn keys can have additional attestations.