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

351–360 of 392 posts

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#351

Post by throwawayk7h »

vel0city wrote: post #275
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.

This doesn't change the fact it can still be your physical device that remains in your personal control. I can stash them on a yubikey or similar device and still meet those requirements. It's still only my device, it doesn't rely on other services, etc.

There are also non-transferrable passkeys which can't be copied between two secure devices, so it'd be hard to get some passkeys onto your yubikey in the first place.

Furthermore, I personally feel that if you can't actually access the bits, you don't truly "own" it.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#352

Post by alt227 »

wilg wrote: post #175
alt227 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creators are often happy that their art is being watched regardless of the source and whether they are making money from it. https://www.screendaily.com/news/piracy-is-the-most-successf... Its the money behind them that cares about restricting access to bleed every penny they can out of it.

That’s an excuse, not universally applicable, and not even well supported by your own link. > Herzog continued. “I don’t like it because I would like to earn some money with my films. But if someone like you steals my films through the internet or whatever, fine, you have my blessing. He’d rather you didn’t. And I bet you’re not checking every artist. Just be honest and say you don’t want to pay, don’t act like you’r…

Not sure why you are directing this at me personly, I dont pirate anything. However I have had experience with many people in the industry who would rather their media reached a wider audience, regardless of how much money it makes.

If you dont like my link, you can always google your own. Or here, have a few more from a quick google:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/hollywood-dir...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/10/hollywood...

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/technology/22iht-godard.h...

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#353

Post by qweqwe14 »

wilg wrote: post #233
qweqwe14 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem There is no problem, just pirate it. > its unethical (and illegal) I guess I'll just keep doing it then, and someone else can keep crying about it on orange computer reddit website

If the best you got is "you can't stop me", that's true, but not really very relevant to what is good and right.

> good and right

For who?

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#354

Post by cyberax »

throwawayk7h wrote: post #350
cyberax wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Passkeys are a subtype of WebAuthn keys, not vice versa.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#355

Post by athrowaway3z »

memcg wrote: post #332
athrowaway3z wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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 what they themselves create must be bought by future generations." I honestly just don't know what your…

The idea that things are created because there is long-running and expansive copyright, is a story that only became the norm around 1950 - i.e. boomers.

Today any kids uploading their YT video thinks of their own copyright. This explanation of copyright as "creator protection" is a story much younger than copyright itself. Its incongruent with history or how its used today >99.99% of the time.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#356

Post by licjon »

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…

By not offering a refund, Sony has done damage to the moral superiority claim that pirated media is theft. If they can effectively steal something you bought, then they can't claim the moral high ground, just the fact of legality.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#357

Post by tshaddox »

wilg wrote: post #235
tshaddox wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, pirating doesn’t stop you or anyone else from sending money to the copyright holder via whatever means the copyright holder prefers.

Most copyright holders prefer you sending money for them in the way they ask you to, which is by purchasing it in the way they are offering it. And it's completely hilarious to suggest that most pirates are somehow Venmoing the artists directly. 99% of content has no way to actually do that.

I didn’t suggest anything about the link between pirating media and buying media, and that’s not relevant to my point. The point is, if you want to support a creator financially, then by all means do so. And if you want a DRM-free copy of a work, and piracy is the only way to get that, then by all means do so. Neither precludes the other.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#358

Post by memcg »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #355
memcg wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 what they themselves create must be bought by future generations." I honestly just don't know what your…

The idea that things are created because there is long-running and expansive copyright, is a story that only became the norm around 1950 - i.e. boomers. Today any kids uploading their YT video thinks of their own copyright. This explanation of copyright as "creator protection" is a story much younger than copyright itself. Its incongruent with history or how its used today >99.99% of the time.

Okay, I was trying to separate legislative changes that occurred prior to the invention of the hardware and software that makes coping and distributing digital files or printed copies trivial today.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#359

Post by duxup »

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…

I'm on team convenience. I don't like it, I get how the media ownership situation sucks a times ... but I don't want to drag a bunch of cds, or blue rays or manage files on some personal server because I want to watch movies.

Re: The case for physical media ownership

#360

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

amelius wrote: post #306
bluebarbet wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'd go further. This obsession with ownership has always struck me as a peculiarly American thing, perhaps related to the absolutely central role of private property in the USA's history. In other cultures the concept of private property is often diluted somewhat by social obligations and counter-obligations. But that aside, the term is already very imperfect for the reasons you describe. Perhaps the better w…

Isn't it the same thing? Stuff you fully control is stuff you own fully. Stuff you don't fully control is stuff you don't own fully. Stuff you fully own is stuff you fully control. Stuff you don't fully own is stuff you don't fully control.

So by your logic, if I steal something, I own it?

I've been asked to own several microservices, yet I'm not allowed to share their code with people, am I therefore barred from actually owning them?

If I have my DNA sequenced, there's a possibility that the company that did the work made a copy. Do I not own that data because of the mere possibility that they could share it with somebody in the future without my consent? Is the only way to retain ownership of that data to do the sequencing myself?

If I record a song, somebody copies it, and then something destroys the original, does the copier now own it instead of me?

It all seems very inconsistent to me. Better to just drop the word all together when it comes to data and handle each case independently.

Post reply on HN