3 ms·

But it basically gives you carte blanche to pirate as much as you want. I mean, you already paid for every album and movie that exists, you might as well take a

But it basically gives you carte blanche to pirate as much as you want. I mean, you already paid for every album and movie that exists, you might as well take advantage of it.

icebraining 10y ago
Well, no, not legally, at least. You can only copy stuff you already own.
- freehunter 10y ago
  That's interesting. I'm not sure on Portuguese law, but at least in the US it's completely legal to copy stuff you already own. The RIAA and MPAA claim it's not, but it is as long as you don't break the DRM that was originally included on the disc. So unless the law in Portugal doesn't include this fair-use clause, you're paying a tax on media to pay companies for something that is already completely legal. Again, I don't know Portuguese law, so it may be completely different.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    The US fair use laws are probably the most liberal anywhere in the world when it comes to excluding some acts from copyright protection (at least within those places where copyright is a serious legal proposition in the first place). I don't know anywhere else that uses generic, test-based standards rather than identifying specific acts to be excluded. This has been a long-standing point of contention, because whether the US's fair use regime fully complies with its international obligations under the major treaties is questionable.
Silhouette 10y ago
No it doesn't, because typically you still have to have some legal copy in the first place before private copying rules apply. The levy is about making extra copies. The biggest problem with this is that if you have a blanket private copying exception to copyright and you also remove the rules about TPMs and anti-circumvention provisions, which is what seems to be proposed in Portugal, then you eliminate any business model more nuanced than selling a permanent copy of a work to each individual customer. No more pay-per-view, no more streaming libraries, no more volume sales or group plans, and no more much lower prices for customers who preferred some of these models to paying full price for a permanent purchase of everything. Many people on both the production and consumption sides could lose out under such a scheme if it was compulsory, while if it could be overridden contractually then surely everyone's terms would just be updated to do exactly that, and then the new scheme probably wouldn't change much in practice.
- hedora 10y ago
  You are assuming that, without DRM, everyone would use netflix to download all the content, then cancel their subscriptions. I doubt this would actually happen. Netflix beat out piracy because it is convenient. People that want to pirate netflix content already do (by sharing accounts). When the music industry abandoned DRM it wasn't a big disaster. I don't see why video would be different.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    I doubt this would actually happen. As someone with experience running somewhat similar services, I can promise you it does happen. Most customers seem to be honest, but the lengths that a significant minority will go to in order to take advantage of any access or exploit the system are almost unbelievable, and the excuses or arguments they make if you call them on it often read like parody. When the music industry abandoned DRM it wasn't a big disaster. I don't see why video would be different. One possibility you might like to consider is that music singles can typically be sold at sub-dollar prices, making an impulse purchase is highly likely, without undermining the commercial viability of the sector. Depending on the nature of the work, the same economics won't necessarily apply to other types of material.

But it basically gives you carte blanche to pirate as much as you want. I mean, you already paid for every album and movie that exists, you might as well take advantage of it.

icebraining 10y ago

Well, no, not legally, at least. You can only copy stuff you already own.

freehunter 10y ago
That's interesting. I'm not sure on Portuguese law, but at least in the US it's completely legal to copy stuff you already own. The RIAA and MPAA claim it's not, but it is as long as you don't break the DRM that was originally included on the disc. So unless the law in Portugal doesn't include this fair-use clause, you're paying a tax on media to pay companies for something that is already completely legal. Again, I don't know Portuguese law, so it may be completely different.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  The US fair use laws are probably the most liberal anywhere in the world when it comes to excluding some acts from copyright protection (at least within those places where copyright is a serious legal proposition in the first place). I don't know anywhere else that uses generic, test-based standards rather than identifying specific acts to be excluded. This has been a long-standing point of contention, because whether the US's fair use regime fully complies with its international obligations under the major treaties is questionable.

Silhouette 10y ago

No it doesn't, because typically you still have to have some legal copy in the first place before private copying rules apply. The levy is about making extra copies. The biggest problem with this is that if you have a blanket private copying exception to copyright and you also remove the rules about TPMs and anti-circumvention provisions, which is what seems to be proposed in Portugal, then you eliminate any business model more nuanced than selling a permanent copy of a work to each individual customer. No more pay-per-view, no more streaming libraries, no more volume sales or group plans, and no more much lower prices for customers who preferred some of these models to paying full price for a permanent purchase of everything. Many people on both the production and consumption sides could lose out under such a scheme if it was compulsory, while if it could be overridden contractually then surely everyone's terms would just be updated to do exactly that, and then the new scheme probably wouldn't change much in practice.

hedora 10y ago
You are assuming that, without DRM, everyone would use netflix to download all the content, then cancel their subscriptions. I doubt this would actually happen. Netflix beat out piracy because it is convenient. People that want to pirate netflix content already do (by sharing accounts). When the music industry abandoned DRM it wasn't a big disaster. I don't see why video would be different.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  I doubt this would actually happen. As someone with experience running somewhat similar services, I can promise you it does happen. Most customers seem to be honest, but the lengths that a significant minority will go to in order to take advantage of any access or exploit the system are almost unbelievable, and the excuses or arguments they make if you call them on it often read like parody. When the music industry abandoned DRM it wasn't a big disaster. I don't see why video would be different. One possibility you might like to consider is that music singles can typically be sold at sub-dollar prices, making an impulse purchase is highly likely, without undermining the commercial viability of the sector. Depending on the nature of the work, the same economics won't necessarily apply to other types of material.