7 ms·

Or, since they're taking the position that you're not buying the media but you're buying a "license", you can purchase it and then pirate a DRM-free copy. But

• sokoloff 8y ago
  Copyright includes the right to not distribute your work (IMO and under the law). Suppose person A takes an intimate digital photo of person B (with their consent). Person A does not offer to sell it to you. It’s still improper for you to take a digital copy. I think the media companies have that same right in their copyrighted works. I realize that wasn’t your main argument, but feel it important enough to mention. I agree with your position on the first 3 paragraphs.
  • yebyen 8y ago
    When copyright was invented, there was no such thing as DRM and they still thought it was important to build in something called Fair Use rights. Those are totally out the window now. Nobody ever conceived that someone could distribute thousands of copies of a work to theater houses, and we'd all be walking around with portable recorders in our pockets. I'd say that the law needs an update, but historically whenever that has happened, it has not gone at all in the direction I'd have liked. The people who dreamed up Copyright laws never imagined that we'd come up with these ridiculous schemes where a content creator (copyright holder) can simultaneously distribute copies and not distribute them. They intended for it to be a limited protection, where copies would be permitted after some finite period of time, so that valuable cultural contributions would not be lost after 100 years when almost nobody cared anymore, except for a few librarians and some people who are yet to be born. But in 100 years, when Blu Ray discs are out of copyright, humans may not remember what a Blu Ray player was (or they could be centrally EOLed by fiat and you will not be able to play content from Blu Ray discs anymore, by some technical disabling) and still, without changes to the law as it currently stands, you will not be able to take a copy for preservation even if you had the technical means or wherewithal to know how to build it. The law was never intended to be used to permanently restrict the sharing and flow of information.
  • teddyh 8y ago
    > Copyright includes the right to not distribute your work (IMO and under the law). Suppose person A takes an intimate digital photo of person B (with their consent). Person A does not offer to sell it to you. It’s still improper for you to take a digital copy. That scenario has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
    • sokoloff 8y ago
      Any limited distribution of content (limited editions, privately commissioned works, etc) absolutely has to do with copyright law (IMO of course). My example was chosen as one type of privately commissioned work that everyone could (presumably) quickly agree with the outcome being the correct one.
      • yebyen 8y ago
        It's a good example, but it's a better fodder for argument if you take out the word "intimate" I don't want my grandchildren or anyone else to have or reproduce intimate photos of me, sure, but I do want the progeny to be able to freely make copies of photos of me in my glory days, for a school project or shrine or whatever. Meanwhile, say, I would like to be able to tightly control distribution of my own image as long as I am alive. If I used one of the DRM mechanisms available today to add a technical protection preventing unauthorized reproductions of my image, ... I don't think I have to say any more, you get the point right? Whatever incentives you have today, Copyright was never meant to protect them exclusively, forever (but the current law, since DMCA and Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse, does essentially allow for this, protection in perpetuity and without exclusion.) Fair Use was a protection introduced in 1976 extension of US Copyright law specifically with the idea of preserving for posterity and other uses with a social benefit in mind. Until much more recently, honoring posterity was always an explicit part of the "social contract" provided by copyright protections. After a reasonable span of time has passed, those protections should expire so that future generations (or even sooner, other cases provided for by fair use) can benefit from the work, in a historical perspective, or any other "fair" context. At one time, nobody could stop you from traveling across a border with a copy or original of some artwork without physically standing in the way. There was also a time when "exploding copies" were science fiction, or maybe the stuff of spy movies. None of these protections for public domain are effective now in an era where these capabilities are real and available to the masses for general use.
  • mirimir 8y ago
    > Copyright includes the right to not distribute your work (IMO and under the law). Yes, I get that. And that's why people in different countries have differing availability for videos etc. Because Netflix etc license different stuff in different markets. Maybe because some markets are too small to justify fees demanded by media companies. Or whatever. But again, that's not my problem. If I can't buy it, or even buy the rights to view it, then getting it from a torrent doesn't damage the copyright holder. Because there's no way that I could pay for it. Short of moving to a suitable country, anyway. Or by using a VPN service to virtually move to a suitable country. I do get the argument that complaints to Netflix etc about unavailable content should drive licensing in affected countries. But I have no patience for that. And, as I say, it's not my problem.