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

311–320 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#311

Post by dinkblam »

Many things are confused here. Why would you want to "own" media, physical or otherwise? What you actually want is

a.) to be able to use the media however you wish. no ownership is required, just download it b.) to give back to the content creator to thank for his creation. no ownership is required here either, you can send him money, go on a concert, etc

trying to merge those two points into one (=>purchase the media) is not necessarily the best way as you might end up with something you cannot properly use (DRM, etc) while not really giving that much to the creator anyway (90% for the label, wtf?)

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#312

Post by babuskov »

SilverElfin wrote: post #201
ripe wrote: post #172

Since I don't see it mentioned yet in the comments: In 2011, movie studios created a digital ownership service called Ultraviolet. You could own titles in your "UltraViolet Digital Rights Locker" and access them from multiple devices via third-party streaming services. [1] "The UltraViolet Digital Rights Locker will keep track of all of the consumers’ UltraViolet digital purchases, whether they bought a movie or tele…

What happens after the service shuts down?

I presume users lost access to everything.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#314

Post by 1313ed01 »

QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #309
dd8601fn wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the state of things? I thought you could copy a legally purchased thing, just not distribute it?

Depends on your country. In my country I can legally make copies of for example books, movies, CDs etc, as long as the copies are only for personal use. I can even legally privately share copies with family and close friends. As in close real life people that I have a personal relationship with. A copy made for personal use cannot later be used for a different purpose. And a copy made for personal use must be made fr…

My understanding is the laws you describe are mostly limited to a few European countries, while most of the rest of the world are more restrictive?

Also, with with the limited right to make copies like that comes quite high fees on recordable media that is paid to the music and movie industries as compensation through organizations like CopySwede here in Sweden.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#315

Post by 1313ed01 »

ForceBru wrote: post #10

> Streaming services rent you access. Digital stores sell you a license that can be taken away. Physical media gives you an object that is yours, offline, and in your hands. > > Physical media can be given away, inherited, or found at a thrift store decades from now. A digital license becomes inaccessible when an account is closed or deleted. A vinyl record or printed book can remain usable across generations. Right,…

It bothers me that my large collection of legally bought, drm-free, works (ebooks and digital games, mostly) will basically transform into illegal warez for my heirs, as I understand the law. They can still legally watch my DVDs, read my printed books, but my collection of tabletop RPG PDFs, GOG games, etc, they may as well have downloaded from some shady torrent site? That does not feel right.

Especially not since many things I bought, like from Humble Bundles, have not been available drm-free since, and may never be, so all legal drm-free copies will expire as the generation that bought them passes away?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#317

Post by rmunn »

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.

There are some cases, such as the "I purchased this and then they removed the media I had purchased" cases being discussed in other parts of the thread, where the artist has already been compensated for the media they created. In those cases (specifically those cases), I feel like the people who then say "F it, I'm not buying it twice just to make Sony/Apply/Disney/whoever richer" and go download a pirated copy are ethically in the right: they compensated the creators in return for the right to watch the movie as many times as they wanted, and a third party (the middleman/distributor) then took that away from them. That the legal terms of the purchase said (in the fine print) "this is a license that can be revoked at any time" does not make what the distributor did ethical. What the distributor did was legal but not ethical.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#318

Post by rldjbpin »

the "physical" part is stressed too much. in today's landscape, it is no longer the only feasible way to address the different grievances made by the op.

if the content is going to be digital* anyway, despite fitting in on physical media, buying media online without drm is the way to go for most people. the bandcamp, gog of the lot that is. then your responsibility is usually just to download and find a way to self-preserve your collection.

physical media is easy on the latter part, but mostly painful on the former. in some cases, it is no longer feasible anyway. the new gta game will be digital-only, and if the nail is not on the coffin yet, this would be the "apple" moment to kill of any major publication ever supporting the medium again.

*i.e. all except vinyls which is still the "best" medium available for music

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#319

Post by Blackstrat »

So pirating is the answer? I don't think so. It's unethical and illegal. Buy the physical media of the books, movies, and music that you consume. Quit screwing the creators. I've seen numerous complaints on HN about one's code being stolen. What's the difference?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#320

Post by FabCH »

Blackstrat wrote: post #319

So pirating is the answer? I don't think so. It's unethical and illegal. Buy the physical media of the books, movies, and music that you consume. Quit screwing the creators. I've seen numerous complaints on HN about one's code being stolen. What's the difference?

It may or may not be unethical, but I can 100% certainly say it is not universally illegal.
Post reply on HN