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

341–350 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#341

Post by Telaneo »

TylerE wrote: post #307
singpolyma3 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that hard to imagine a better system. Abolish all copyrights

It's easy to imagine that as a world where no one funds any thing resembling research or content because it will get instantly ripped off.

We got the PC only because the clone market got in on the action and the courts found that the only thing copyrightable was the PC BIOS. The PC got better because dozens of companies were able to copy and improve.

Imagine how many new remixes and takes on music and films we could have if you didn't have to worry about a corp breathing down your neck if your chords are a bit too similar to something from 50 years ago.

Have a look at Chinese factories borrowing manufacturing processes from each other in order to work more efficiently. They don't give a shit that someone else is using their process, since wanting to protect that and not having everybody else be able to use it is literally backwards thinking (towards the past!).

Actual important research, like medical stuff and whatnot, should be government funded either way. Even the US does this, did it more in the past, and it was good work.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#342

Post by Telaneo »

rich_sasha wrote: post #340
Telaneo wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Buy a DVD for X, or "own" a DRM version for Y One the one hand, yes, on the other hand, the DRM-free option is often non-existent (and if you want to include DVD and blu-rays in that pile, because they too do have DRM, just that you can bypass it with ease these days, DRMed media is probably the default). If I could buy a copy for X, a DRMed copy for X minus Y, and a rug-pullable version for X minus Y and Z, then I…

I suppose you can't force people to sell you the license you want. Someone might reasonably develop some land, build flats and only rent them out, no obligation to sell them. But then you regulate what the landlord can and cannot do.

Agreed. If we had regulated and non-insane DRM, we wouldn't be in this pickle.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#343

Post by II2II »

wilg wrote: post #277
II2II wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm sorta in the same boat there. There are plenty of people willing to give their work away, sell it DRM free, or sell it at a lower cost (offsetting the fact it is licensed). Plus you have things like libraries and the public domain. There are more than enough alternatives, in many cases, to avoid supporting sketchy business practices. But a lot of people become fixated on getting a particular thing.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#344

Post by frollogaston »

Doxin wrote: post #293
dataflow wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You can still share pre-DRM copyrighted work without running afoul of any laws. Stuff like lending out or selling VHS tapes. Copyright is concerned about copying, not about moving. Digital media just makes the line between copying and moving sufficiently blurry that companies get away with making moving impossible under the guise of making copying impossible.

Exactly, which is why the article is right to focus on physical media, it's the only practical way to allow moving without copying.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#345

Post by frollogaston »

jolmg wrote: post #173

Tangential, but a few days ago I started some Steam games I hadn't played in some years. I was surprised to be met with updated user agreements, which I had to agree to if I wanted to play the games I bought years ago. These were all single-player games. > If you can't hold it, you don't own it. Didn't some game consoles require online connectivity to play even games in physical media?[1] It's possible for a game dis…

You don't even remotely own Steam games. Their shitty launcher has to open to let your game run since it checks DRM, and it'll force updates (see gta4). You also can't transfer your license, so no second hand games.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#346

Post by hoherd »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #81
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…

Adobe did this with their perpetually licensed software. If you install Lightroom 6 today, the face detection and maps features do not work because they didn't pay for perpetual licenses for the libraries they used.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#347

Post by frollogaston »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #39
CodesInChaos wrote: post #7

Unfortunately many game disks only contain a downloader nowadays and you often need to bind them to an account to play. Plus the version on disk without updates is probably buggy. Baldur's Gate 3 Collector's edition is an example that has a disk, but isn't really any better than a Steam key. On the other hand you can back up a DRM free download, like the games on GOG, despite these being a purely digital download. So…

It's disgusting how a previously open platform for gaming (PC) was turned into what it's become with Steam. Young people either don't know or don't care that it used to be the norm to buy and install a game without a middleman "service".

PC game piracy was pretty mainstream back then. It was a real problem for video game creators.

But Steam is also more annoying than it needs to be, especially forcing updates and not letting you transfer games so it's not comparable to owning a disc.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#348

Post by causality0 »

ktallett wrote: post #299
causality0 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? A few weeks ago I had to contact support to remove some games from my account and the response time was decent.

I am curious why you had to remove them. Was it content reasons? Was it you were moving and ownership of them in your new home isn't legal?

For some reason the user can't remove games from their account and it has to be done by support. A while ago they had an "anti-censorship" promotion with several games. I wanted Postal, but I didn't know I'd get all the games in the promotion added to my account at the same time, and it was like a dozen porn games I didn't want.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#349

Post by microgpt »

zephen wrote: post #338
microgpt wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possible solutions include small claims court. You can't refuse a refund for a defective product just because you had to open the box to find out it was defective.

Yeah, the distributed responsibility might make this difficult, but maybe not impossible. Is the disc defective because it doesn't play in a labeled player, or is the player defective because it doesn't play a labeled disc? Can the licensing body be held responsible? In point of fact, you'd probably get your money back in small claims court just by suing the store, with evidence that your player plays other discs, ju…

I think by default it's whichever one you bought later. The judge may tell you it's the other one. But it doesn't matter because either way the store has to issue a refund.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#350

Post by throwawayk7h »

cyberax wrote: post #290
throwawayk7h wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't consider WebAuthn to be passkeys? Why not?
Post reply on HN