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

291–300 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#291

Post by Telaneo »

TylerE wrote: post #288
Telaneo wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like we need economic and/or social reform if people are starving.

That problem is largely irrelevant to copyright infringement. All copyright infringement (within a rounding error, exceptions obviously exist) doesn't actually hurt plucky artists from whom starvation is a real threat. Copyright infringement is largely a problem for corps who lose out on some money (money which almost certainly doesn't drip down to the actual artists).

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#292

Post by TylerE »

autoexec wrote: post #176
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The same with movies, TV shows, and video games using licensed music. If you agree to let a song be in a work you should expect that song to be in that work forever. I'm tired of media never seeing the light of day because of the expense of re-licensing the music or even having it re-released but with all the music removed or replaced by generic tracks.

Such contracts can and have been negotiated. It's simply - as logic would dictate - more expensive. Just like buying a house is far more expensive than renting it for a few years.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#293

Post by Doxin »

dataflow wrote: post #286
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…

> 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.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#294

Post by Telaneo »

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!

> You actually have to support the creators however THEY want if you want access, not however YOU want.

No, I don't.

> I suspect you're not actually supporting all the creators of the things you watch via piracy!

I don't actually want to support most of them. The few I care about get donations.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#295

Post by TylerE »

Telaneo wrote: post #291
TylerE wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer the artists who make the work I enjoy not to starve. That is a moral/ethical principle.

Sounds like we need economic and/or social reform if people are starving. That problem is largely irrelevant to copyright infringement. All copyright infringement (within a rounding error, exceptions obviously exist) doesn't actually hurt plucky artists from whom starvation is a real threat. Copyright infringement is largely a problem for corps who lose out on some money (money which almost certainly doesn't drip dow…

It is impossible to having to have a meaningful discussion with someone living in fantasy land. Good day. I'm here if you wish to discuss reality and not some imagined communist utopia.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#296

Post by Telaneo »

TylerE wrote: post #295
Telaneo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we need economic and/or social reform if people are starving. That problem is largely irrelevant to copyright infringement. All copyright infringement (within a rounding error, exceptions obviously exist) doesn't actually hurt plucky artists from whom starvation is a real threat. Copyright infringement is largely a problem for corps who lose out on some money (money which almost certainly doesn't drip dow…

It is impossible to having to have a meaningful discussion with someone living in fantasy land. Good day. I'm here if you wish to discuss reality and not some imagined communist utopia.

Reality can be better.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#297

Post by yard2010 »

basisword wrote: post #241
joquarky wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your values are outdated and impractical. You've obviously stalled at the "law and order" phase of moral development which enables the parasites who are abusing copyright law in order to extract every cent from us.

Someday you'll pass the 'edgelord' phase of development (hopefully).

Lol, I sincerely hope not.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#298

Post by Telaneo »

rich_sasha wrote: post #110

I think DRM is frankly a lot more of a consumer education/rights thing than some kind of outright evil. Buy a DVD for X, or "own" a DRM version for Y The issue starts when: - vendors don't make it clear that they can pull the rug - or indeed can pull the rug for no reason. A bank can close my bank account, but not for no reason - and they can't hold on to my money just because. It should be the same with DRM-protecte…

> Buy a DVD for X, or "own" a DRM version for YOne 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 might even buy the cheapest option every now and then if it's just throwaway. As it is though, a plain DRM-free copy is often completely unavailable (unless you sail the high seas).

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#299

Post by ktallett »

causality0 wrote: post #249
playorizaya wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#300

Post by PaulRobinson »

dataflow wrote: post #286
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…

> 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?

By OP's framing, it seems so.

But I think there's more nuance here. I can buy a copyrighted book, read it, and then sell it or give it to you for free. The copyright holder's rights have not been violated: I've not copied it, the clue is in the name copyright.

It's not legal for me to go into a library, borrow a book, and then make a copy of it. It's a larger breach to then share that copy more broadly by making more copies.

In the digital era copying is cheaper, and distribution is broader. This caused panic within publishers of all media - they wanted to provide the convenience of digital distribution and consumption (and realise the cost savings), but noted that without DRM, copying would mean there was a risk they'd only ever sell one copy of a game, film, album or book.

This is a snap back to the extreme interpretation of enforcing copyrights. Publishers could structure their DRM and licensing to mimic physical media better. For example, the license could be irrevocable and provide a right to the user of a copy in perpetuity, so it can't be withdrawn. The license could be transferred to other owners: I could lend you my copy, you could then return it to me, digitally; I could donate it to a charity; I could sell my license to another individual; it could be part of my estate and bequeathed at my death.

Physical media has flaws, so does digital media. With a little vision and not much technology we could make digital media as awesome as physical media while retaining copyright to drive investment.

Or, we could go the way OP seems to be nudging towards: we try and grow the copyleft media industry to something economically viable and put the entire economic model of controlled distribution into a place of no longer being viable as a business. Big ask.

Post reply on HN