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

321–330 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#321

Post by TFNA »

wilg wrote: post #158
blfr wrote: post #3

Just 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.

This is an international website. Many people here come from countries where pirated CD and DVD stands were part of the local marketplace or mall. Your harping on ethics just won't be relevant to those fellow readers.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#322

Post by xeonmc »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #256
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…

We should really just abandon the notion of ownership when it comes to data. When I own data, sometimes it refers to data I created. Other times it refers to data about me. Other times it's something I've been sold. Other times it's my responsibility to ensure that data's accuracy. There are probably a few I'm missing. I happen to like the notion of ownership that you're describing, but I think we'd all have more fru…

In the case of data it should be more aptly described as "possession" rather than "ownership"

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#323

Post by singpolyma3 »

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.

Since that's not what the world was like before copyright, and since copyright is more often used to rip people off than protect them, this seems unlikely.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#324

Post by win311fwg »

al_borland wrote: post #112
win311fwg wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can buy DRM free music from the iTunes Store, download the files, and they’re mine. If you hold the copyright they are yours, but most files downloaded from iTunes and similar services are unlikely to be yours. A license to use the content, even where there are few restrictions, is not ownership.

If holding the copyright is the bar, then physical media doesn’t give that either. Buying a physical book doesn’t transfer the copyright to me. I can start producing more copies and selling them, at least not legally.

> Buying a physical book doesn’t transfer the copyright to me.

Correct. Who was under the impression that it does?

> I can[not] start producing more copies and selling them, at least not legally.

Unless you own it. Someone out there will be the owner. Sometimes that might be you; but typically not.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#326

Post by dfxm12 »

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.

If your argument for piracy being unethical revolves around royalties, consider Hollywood accounting and how studios are actually screwing the creative types, regardless of sales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Also consider that the rights to works aren't necessarily held by their creators.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#327

Post by athrowaway3z »

wilg wrote: post #234
athrowaway3z wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hate the ethnical argument because It's so much weaker than people who use it imagine it to be. As a very flattened retelling of history, it was only with the boomers that we reached the tipping point on how people started to think about copyright (Copyright != Attributed Authorship). With them, a majority started to believe in a world where the human history they consumed was a gift from the past, and that…

This is word salad. People are making things that you want so they can make a living and you can have something you want. This is a win-win. The only problem is you have to pay for things which people only offer in exchange for money. You can cheat them, but it's not cool to pretend you're doing it for some big amorphous moral fight.

You call my comment word salad, but the model you present of supply-and-demand is so shallow it can't be used to explain why copyright was first created, and what problem it solved.

Something that legislation about copyright usually does get right.

This Santa Claus version of reality is exactly the kind of mainstream ignorance I was complaining about.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#328

Post by dfxm12 »

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.

Setting aside works whose rights are in dispute, have been sold or whose creators are long dead, can you elaborate on this in light of what we know about, for example, Hollywood accounting? If you want to put money in the hands of your favorite living artists, there are more efficient ways than buying their work through a middle man and hoping they live up to their end of the bargain. Buy merch directly through them, for example. More independent creative types tend to have things like PayPal for this as well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#329

Post by vrganj »

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.

The vast majority of the money goes to middlemen, rights holders, investors, executives and other suited up parasites.

If you want artists to make a living, you need to end shareholder capitalism, not reinforce it.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#330

Post by vrganj »

wilg wrote: post #231
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.

I don't think the idea of "paying creators for things I want" is outdated or impractical. Law and order is the foundation of civilization, and just because some dumb companies charge more than you want does not mean you are righteous for breaking the social contract.

You're not paying creators. You're paying the extraction machine that squeezes artists dry.
Post reply on HN