7 ms·

If you pirate content it's gonna be yours forever no matter what. So if you buy stuff and it's going to get taken away from you for arbitrary reasons... you mi

by znpy 5y ago

If you pirate content it's gonna be yours forever no matter what. So if you buy stuff and it's going to get taken away from you for arbitrary reasons... you might as well pirate stuff.

nix23 5y ago
Well you are not wrong, but pirating is not the answer but cracking. For example i regularly backup my Audible library and remove the DRM, not to redistribute them, but in the case Amazon closes the Audible-brand, change the Apps i can access my library, delete some of them etc (we all know what can happen and did in the past). Same with games, if possible i buy them from HumbleBundle or GOG. And i never buy something that is bound to a platform that i really care for.
- fsflover 5y ago
  You still support this unfair business with your money. If you want to fight DRM, check out https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ https://www.defectivebydesign.org/.
  - nix23 5y ago
    Look the audible drm is so easy to remove i am ok with it, if they change it and i cannot remove it anymore i will stop. And yes i hate drm too, but since stallman is a extremist that supports un-free licenses (unlike the BSD and MIT) i will not listen to his wannabe rants, and i will never forgive him to change the GCC license to GPL3 only. If i care for something i remove the drm, if i cant, i will stop buying it.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
      Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). GPL puts the user's freedom first. Every developer is mostly a user anyway, unless you're writing absolutely everything from scratch like they do in SerenityOS. So I like that stance very much. If you don't, nobody is forcing you to interact with GPLed software in any way.
      - saladuh 5y ago
        Exactly. Copyleft is more about "freedom for society" as a whole, ensuring all users (which includes developers) retain this version of freedom. Permissive licenses are more about "freedom" for the individual to do whatever they want, with the potential to take freedoms away from others as a result. I think the stupid anti-gpl sentiment mostly comes from American idealisms of freedom, and developer selfishness, but that's just imo. The GPL still lets you do whatever you want in the privacy of your own computer, but when you put that GPLed software into the public, you need to ensure that you give the same freedoms to everyone else to have within their own computers as well. I think that's much more noble and kind. But as long as it's free software, I'll still use it and be happy it is, regardless of the license. And tbh it'd be nice if the small, loud minority of BSD lovers, GPL despisers would shut up. They give the BSD crowd a terrible look.
      - nix23 5y ago
        >Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows, Linux on the Desktop does everything right? >GPL puts the user's freedom first. No it's free promotion for the FSF >scratch like they do in SerenityOS Yes and they chose a good license (BSD2)
        fsflover 5y ago
        > No it's free promotion for the FSF They deserve the promotion, because they created useful software. > BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows At some point, Windows was everywhere, you couldn't hide from it. Now, Linux provides a strong competition, forcing even Microsoft to include it into Windows. BSD, instead, served as free labor for Apple, who created a walled garden for users. What exactly do you want to do with the code that GPL prevents you from?
- neuroma 5y ago
  Care to suggest a preferred method?
  - exhilaration 5y ago
    I too would like to know this, I've got years of Audible books and this is the first time I even thought of backing them up. This Reddit thread has several options https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way_to_remove_an_audible_book_drm_aaxmp3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way... including a website that will generate the ffmpeg command: https://audible-converter.ml/ https://audible-converter.ml/
- periheli0n 5y ago
  This is still pirating. The fact that you don't share the cracked media doesn't change the fact that you violated the T&Cs. And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy.
  - JohnFen 5y ago
    In the US, I don't think they could (but it may depend on the details of how you did it). They could sue you for contract violation, but would they? There's no upside for them to do so.
  - Volker_W 5y ago
    > And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy. Afaik, they could in Germany. One of the most BS laws.
    - nix23 5y ago
      You have a right for a private copy in Germany too, but you are not allowed to use software who can "delete security mechanisms"...that's why it is such a BS law.
  - nix23 5y ago
    In Switzerland we have a law "right for private copy" and yes you have the right to crack the drm, it's not like that german perversion. Terms are not law, and are most terms are illegal in europe anyway.
hvgk 5y ago
That’s why I don’t pirate stuff. I don’t want to hoard it and keep it. I just want to use it once and be done with it. The only exception is content I create. With a couple of minor exceptions that works well for me. Historically i hoarded content and ended up with 2TB of crap I was never going to watch again. So I deleted it and now don’t have to herd hard discs.
- dsclough 5y ago
  my man you can delete the files once youre done
  - majkinetor 5y ago
    LOL. Its probably too much for new generation too.
    - hvgk 5y ago
      My daughter is amazingly apt at not paying for content. You’d be surprised.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      While I agree with you, it's not as simple as it seems. One of the crucial skills we have to learn in the digital age is to discard information. Historically, we have evolved as hoarders: keeping valuable things usually pays off.[0] With information, it's no longer the case. You don't have scarcity like with physical goods: there is more available than you can absorb during many lifetimes. So we need to develop the crucial skill of discerning between the top stuff you really want and need - and everything else that should be discarded. Based on my limited personal experience, this is not always easy but improves with time. [0] Marie Kondo would disagree
      - silverpepsi 5y ago
        I don't get it, this is not a house with limited square footage. Discarding is of almost zero importance, in fact, you have it logically backwards because discarding incurs a cost of investing your precious time to make a decision. While retaining only requires you to have an amorphous blob somewhere, a non-event. This is especially true for things tens of megs to a few gigs. Of course not yet true for 4K videos, but we are approaching that point not year by year as cost per TB approaches 0. By saving stuff, you future proof the high possiblity that it becomes completely unavailable anywhere online and you have the last copy. And you can easily find it by search, I have this happen all the time. In many cases the audio cassettes that accompany an old pedagogic text have been digitized by one person who shares a zip one time and then the link dies forever. Ten years later when I finally free up time to study the material, it will be too late. The important skill: don't download or even browse crap you certainly won't use within your lifetime. It is a time sink. Develop a strong preference for only looking for things you'll immediately begin studying or have a concrete plan to study in the coming 6mos.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
That's why whenever I buy a DRM-ed content like a book on my Kindle, I always download an un-DRM-ed copy from Librusec. If it's unavailable, I un-DRM it myself. This is for non-fiction where I'm likely to go back and read the book (or, more likely, its fragments) again, possibly many times. For fiction, I don't care that much - usually I read a fiction book once in a lifetime so if Amazon steals it from me or not it makes no difference. It's not like I can give it to someone like with a physical book.
- bambax 5y ago
  Same here. But of course with fiction (or anything really) you can forward the un-DRMed book to your kids, your spouse, etc.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    There’s also family sharing for kindle, so this isn’t particularly a feature.
Hokusai 5y ago
> you might as well pirate stuff I want big corporations to abide to the law. To pirate is a patch that does not solve the problem. Let's fix that corporations do whatever they want with your digital property. I want to buy digital movies, games, music, ... without being at the mercy of some algorithm that can automatically steal what is mine.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://bandcamp.com https://bandcamp.com
- znpy 5y ago
  I agree, but in the meantime...
- megous 5y ago
  It's not your digital property. Look eg. at Netflix ToS, you're just buying a temporary membership in some club that will allow you access to some content, on their terms. That's not what ownership looks like. I suspect it will be similar with all other consumer oriented content distribution services.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    And so it should be considered an open-and-shut case of false advertising. The small print may not take away what is given by the large print. If the large print says "Buy Now", then the small print may not replace buying with licensing.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Yeah but if people keep pirating the corporations will groan and lobby for the sensible legislation for us. They will eventually figure out that they have no control and will ask for laws that grant rights to consumers that benefit them as well (people actually trusting them again). I think that's a good patch. We just need to incentivize them to do the right thing.
  - 5y ago
willis936 5y ago
Audible books can be bought without a subscription, downloaded in an encrypted format, then decrypted by a FOSS tool (such as Libation). It's roundabout, but at least for audiobooks there is a way to own what you want to listen to and still support the creators.
- rhamzeh 5y ago
  Or you can buy audiobooks from https://libro.fm/ https://libro.fm/ or similar and support open formats and your local bookstores. Leave audible as a last resort, the more you buy from, the more you are 1) supporting them 2) telling then you don't mind DRMed media.

by znpy 5y ago

If you pirate content it's gonna be yours forever no matter what. So if you buy stuff and it's going to get taken away from you for arbitrary reasons... you might as well pirate stuff.

nix23 5y ago

Well you are not wrong, but pirating is not the answer but cracking. For example i regularly backup my Audible library and remove the DRM, not to redistribute them, but in the case Amazon closes the Audible-brand, change the Apps i can access my library, delete some of them etc (we all know what can happen and did in the past). Same with games, if possible i buy them from HumbleBundle or GOG. And i never buy something that is bound to a platform that i really care for.

fsflover 5y ago
You still support this unfair business with your money. If you want to fight DRM, check out https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ https://www.defectivebydesign.org/.
- nix23 5y ago
  Look the audible drm is so easy to remove i am ok with it, if they change it and i cannot remove it anymore i will stop. And yes i hate drm too, but since stallman is a extremist that supports un-free licenses (unlike the BSD and MIT) i will not listen to his wannabe rants, and i will never forgive him to change the GCC license to GPL3 only. If i care for something i remove the drm, if i cant, i will stop buying it.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). GPL puts the user's freedom first. Every developer is mostly a user anyway, unless you're writing absolutely everything from scratch like they do in SerenityOS. So I like that stance very much. If you don't, nobody is forcing you to interact with GPLed software in any way.
    - saladuh 5y ago
      Exactly. Copyleft is more about "freedom for society" as a whole, ensuring all users (which includes developers) retain this version of freedom. Permissive licenses are more about "freedom" for the individual to do whatever they want, with the potential to take freedoms away from others as a result. I think the stupid anti-gpl sentiment mostly comes from American idealisms of freedom, and developer selfishness, but that's just imo. The GPL still lets you do whatever you want in the privacy of your own computer, but when you put that GPLed software into the public, you need to ensure that you give the same freedoms to everyone else to have within their own computers as well. I think that's much more noble and kind. But as long as it's free software, I'll still use it and be happy it is, regardless of the license. And tbh it'd be nice if the small, loud minority of BSD lovers, GPL despisers would shut up. They give the BSD crowd a terrible look.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows, Linux on the Desktop does everything right? >GPL puts the user's freedom first. No it's free promotion for the FSF >scratch like they do in SerenityOS Yes and they chose a good license (BSD2)
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > No it's free promotion for the FSF They deserve the promotion, because they created useful software. > BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows At some point, Windows was everywhere, you couldn't hide from it. Now, Linux provides a strong competition, forcing even Microsoft to include it into Windows. BSD, instead, served as free labor for Apple, who created a walled garden for users. What exactly do you want to do with the code that GPL prevents you from?
neuroma 5y ago
Care to suggest a preferred method?
- exhilaration 5y ago
  I too would like to know this, I've got years of Audible books and this is the first time I even thought of backing them up. This Reddit thread has several options https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way_to_remove_an_audible_book_drm_aaxmp3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way... including a website that will generate the ffmpeg command: https://audible-converter.ml/ https://audible-converter.ml/
periheli0n 5y ago
This is still pirating. The fact that you don't share the cracked media doesn't change the fact that you violated the T&Cs. And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  In the US, I don't think they could (but it may depend on the details of how you did it). They could sue you for contract violation, but would they? There's no upside for them to do so.
- Volker_W 5y ago
  > And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy. Afaik, they could in Germany. One of the most BS laws.
  - nix23 5y ago
    You have a right for a private copy in Germany too, but you are not allowed to use software who can "delete security mechanisms"...that's why it is such a BS law.
- nix23 5y ago
  In Switzerland we have a law "right for private copy" and yes you have the right to crack the drm, it's not like that german perversion. Terms are not law, and are most terms are illegal in europe anyway.

hvgk 5y ago

That’s why I don’t pirate stuff. I don’t want to hoard it and keep it. I just want to use it once and be done with it. The only exception is content I create. With a couple of minor exceptions that works well for me. Historically i hoarded content and ended up with 2TB of crap I was never going to watch again. So I deleted it and now don’t have to herd hard discs.

dsclough 5y ago
my man you can delete the files once youre done
- majkinetor 5y ago
  LOL. Its probably too much for new generation too.
  - hvgk 5y ago
    My daughter is amazingly apt at not paying for content. You’d be surprised.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    While I agree with you, it's not as simple as it seems. One of the crucial skills we have to learn in the digital age is to discard information. Historically, we have evolved as hoarders: keeping valuable things usually pays off.[0] With information, it's no longer the case. You don't have scarcity like with physical goods: there is more available than you can absorb during many lifetimes. So we need to develop the crucial skill of discerning between the top stuff you really want and need - and everything else that should be discarded. Based on my limited personal experience, this is not always easy but improves with time. [0] Marie Kondo would disagree
    - silverpepsi 5y ago
      I don't get it, this is not a house with limited square footage. Discarding is of almost zero importance, in fact, you have it logically backwards because discarding incurs a cost of investing your precious time to make a decision. While retaining only requires you to have an amorphous blob somewhere, a non-event. This is especially true for things tens of megs to a few gigs. Of course not yet true for 4K videos, but we are approaching that point not year by year as cost per TB approaches 0. By saving stuff, you future proof the high possiblity that it becomes completely unavailable anywhere online and you have the last copy. And you can easily find it by search, I have this happen all the time. In many cases the audio cassettes that accompany an old pedagogic text have been digitized by one person who shares a zip one time and then the link dies forever. Ten years later when I finally free up time to study the material, it will be too late. The important skill: don't download or even browse crap you certainly won't use within your lifetime. It is a time sink. Develop a strong preference for only looking for things you'll immediately begin studying or have a concrete plan to study in the coming 6mos.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

That's why whenever I buy a DRM-ed content like a book on my Kindle, I always download an un-DRM-ed copy from Librusec. If it's unavailable, I un-DRM it myself. This is for non-fiction where I'm likely to go back and read the book (or, more likely, its fragments) again, possibly many times. For fiction, I don't care that much - usually I read a fiction book once in a lifetime so if Amazon steals it from me or not it makes no difference. It's not like I can give it to someone like with a physical book.

bambax 5y ago
Same here. But of course with fiction (or anything really) you can forward the un-DRMed book to your kids, your spouse, etc.
- tekknik 5y ago
  There’s also family sharing for kindle, so this isn’t particularly a feature.

Hokusai 5y ago

> you might as well pirate stuff I want big corporations to abide to the law. To pirate is a patch that does not solve the problem. Let's fix that corporations do whatever they want with your digital property. I want to buy digital movies, games, music, ... without being at the mercy of some algorithm that can automatically steal what is mine.

fsflover 5y ago
https://bandcamp.com https://bandcamp.com
znpy 5y ago
I agree, but in the meantime...
megous 5y ago
It's not your digital property. Look eg. at Netflix ToS, you're just buying a temporary membership in some club that will allow you access to some content, on their terms. That's not what ownership looks like. I suspect it will be similar with all other consumer oriented content distribution services.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  And so it should be considered an open-and-shut case of false advertising. The small print may not take away what is given by the large print. If the large print says "Buy Now", then the small print may not replace buying with licensing.
datavirtue 5y ago
Yeah but if people keep pirating the corporations will groan and lobby for the sensible legislation for us. They will eventually figure out that they have no control and will ask for laws that grant rights to consumers that benefit them as well (people actually trusting them again). I think that's a good patch. We just need to incentivize them to do the right thing.
- 5y ago

willis936 5y ago

Audible books can be bought without a subscription, downloaded in an encrypted format, then decrypted by a FOSS tool (such as Libation). It's roundabout, but at least for audiobooks there is a way to own what you want to listen to and still support the creators.

rhamzeh 5y ago
Or you can buy audiobooks from https://libro.fm/ https://libro.fm/ or similar and support open formats and your local bookstores. Leave audible as a last resort, the more you buy from, the more you are 1) supporting them 2) telling then you don't mind DRMed media.