4 ms·

If I cant buy (and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"), then I pirate. If content creator want people to buy their content, the

by malka 4y ago

If I cant buy (and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"), then I pirate. If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it.

sosborn 4y ago
They do, it just isn't on the terms you want.
- malka 4y ago
  no they dont. Sony / amazon / apple / google can deactivate my account an any given time, and destroy all my content. Cant do that with DVD.
  - sosborn 4y ago
    Again, you can pay for it, but it isn’t on the terms you want. I’m not saying you are wrong for not wanting those terms.
    - malka 4y ago
      i did not said I cannot pay for it. I sait i cannot buy it.
falcolas 4y ago
Respectfully, that's a fantastic set of "rules" which will justify unconditional piracy, since no studios of any size will offer anything but a license to watch their content. That's how the market has been built. Even DVDs will fail this test.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  I disagree. People said the same about music, and now you can buy DRM free mp3 and flac downloads because of previous pirating pressure. Most piracy is a symptom of bad services.
  - basscomm 4y ago
    Just because you're buying an unencumbered MP3 or flac file doesn't mean you're free to do whatever you want with it. You're still licensed for just you and you can't make copies to send to all your friends (how enforceable that is is something that's above my head). I'd say that most modern media piracy is still a matter of cost and convenience. If you're the kind of person that watches a couple of movies a week, at $20 a pop the cost adds up fast. Plus you have to go to the store or order online and wait for a DVD to show up. With piracy you can watch right away. It's one of the reasons Netflix was such a game-changer. Somehow along the way a lot of people got it into their heads that all entertainment (and also news and educational materials. Basically, anything that doesn't have a physical form) should be free (free as in beer and free as in freedom) and they'll go through some impressive mental contortions to rationalize their piracy any way they can.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      "An unjust law is no law at all...has become a standard legal maxim around the world."[1] "Thomas Aquinas [argued] ... a law only need to be obeyed if it is [among other things] ... for the common good."[1] The question we have to ask is: Is current copyright law unjust? Well, it allows telling people that they are buying something (in large print, even if the fine print says something else) then taking that thing away. And copyright on digital goods allows unprecedented control over how tools are used, when and where content can be shown, and how things that we've paid for can be retained and resold. And it is also clear that recent copyright laws were written for the benefit of a few corporations, not for the common good. So I'm beginning to believe that current copyright law is unjust and should be disobeyed as a principled form of civil disobedience, not merely for convenience or to save money. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all
- malka 4y ago
  I wish any studio good luck to disable a license on a DVD.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  > Even DVDs will fail this test. Maybe in theory. In practice, I disagree. Care to elaborate if you mean anything other than what's technically said on the box? Even the most recent DVD releases work on the oldest of DVD players without any firmware updates/online drm that could revoke a license or something.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Respectfully, that's a fantastic set of "rules" which will justify unconditional piracy, since no studios of any size will offer anything but a license to watch their content. That's how the market has been built. That's clearly not true, since starting from the 70s up until fairly recently one could always buy the movies to keep for life. > Even DVDs will fail this test. You'll have to explain that thinking, since they don't. I buy a DVD (which is the only way I buy movies) and it's mine to keep forever. If I get tired of it, I can resell it to someone else.
jclardy 4y ago
Ignoring the piracy aspect, I don't really understand this mindset. Why must you own a piece of media in perpetuity? Do you value things like going to a live concert where you only get the experience? IMO most Hollywood content made today is really not worth watching a second time.
- fifticon 4y ago
  That is part of the problem. I want to permanently buy records of older quality movies. Instead of offering me that, they want to sell me jurassic rehash 7.
basscomm 4y ago
> If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it. They are selling it. Just because they're not selling in precisely the way you want them to, that does not mean that you're entitled to the content anyway. You justify your piracy all you want, but let's not pretend that you'd fork over the cash to legitimize your entire library of pirated entertainment if it showed up tomorrow on some store that offered exclusively freedom-respecting DRM-free downloads (okay, maybe you would, but most people wouldn't).
- lllollhcdgb 4y ago
  They aren't selling it, though, they're "licensing" it, which is indefinite rent. Not the same. Honestly they should be forced to say "rent until we change our minds" instead of "buy" in the advertisements and interfaces.
- johndough 4y ago
  > They are selling it. Do you mean rent? See parent poster's clarification for the term "buy": > and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    How is it renting? You purchase a license. At no time do you ever transfer this license over to someone else to "return the rental license."
    - malka 4y ago
      The licence can be revoken at any given time. This might not be renting, but it is not buying.
- jjav 4y ago
  > > If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it. > They are selling it. The word "sell" means something different. They are not selling it if all they are doing is renting it. Which is their right if that's what they want, but there needs to be some legislation to prevent them from calling it a sale when it's really merely a short-term rental.

by malka 4y ago

If I cant buy (and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"), then I pirate. If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it.

sosborn 4y ago

They do, it just isn't on the terms you want.

malka 4y ago
no they dont. Sony / amazon / apple / google can deactivate my account an any given time, and destroy all my content. Cant do that with DVD.
- sosborn 4y ago
  Again, you can pay for it, but it isn’t on the terms you want. I’m not saying you are wrong for not wanting those terms.
  - malka 4y ago
    i did not said I cannot pay for it. I sait i cannot buy it.

falcolas 4y ago

Respectfully, that's a fantastic set of "rules" which will justify unconditional piracy, since no studios of any size will offer anything but a license to watch their content. That's how the market has been built. Even DVDs will fail this test.

_Algernon_ 4y ago
I disagree. People said the same about music, and now you can buy DRM free mp3 and flac downloads because of previous pirating pressure. Most piracy is a symptom of bad services.
- basscomm 4y ago
  Just because you're buying an unencumbered MP3 or flac file doesn't mean you're free to do whatever you want with it. You're still licensed for just you and you can't make copies to send to all your friends (how enforceable that is is something that's above my head). I'd say that most modern media piracy is still a matter of cost and convenience. If you're the kind of person that watches a couple of movies a week, at $20 a pop the cost adds up fast. Plus you have to go to the store or order online and wait for a DVD to show up. With piracy you can watch right away. It's one of the reasons Netflix was such a game-changer. Somehow along the way a lot of people got it into their heads that all entertainment (and also news and educational materials. Basically, anything that doesn't have a physical form) should be free (free as in beer and free as in freedom) and they'll go through some impressive mental contortions to rationalize their piracy any way they can.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    "An unjust law is no law at all...has become a standard legal maxim around the world."[1] "Thomas Aquinas [argued] ... a law only need to be obeyed if it is [among other things] ... for the common good."[1] The question we have to ask is: Is current copyright law unjust? Well, it allows telling people that they are buying something (in large print, even if the fine print says something else) then taking that thing away. And copyright on digital goods allows unprecedented control over how tools are used, when and where content can be shown, and how things that we've paid for can be retained and resold. And it is also clear that recent copyright laws were written for the benefit of a few corporations, not for the common good. So I'm beginning to believe that current copyright law is unjust and should be disobeyed as a principled form of civil disobedience, not merely for convenience or to save money. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all
malka 4y ago
I wish any studio good luck to disable a license on a DVD.
iforgotpassword 4y ago
> Even DVDs will fail this test. Maybe in theory. In practice, I disagree. Care to elaborate if you mean anything other than what's technically said on the box? Even the most recent DVD releases work on the oldest of DVD players without any firmware updates/online drm that could revoke a license or something.
jjav 4y ago
> Respectfully, that's a fantastic set of "rules" which will justify unconditional piracy, since no studios of any size will offer anything but a license to watch their content. That's how the market has been built. That's clearly not true, since starting from the 70s up until fairly recently one could always buy the movies to keep for life. > Even DVDs will fail this test. You'll have to explain that thinking, since they don't. I buy a DVD (which is the only way I buy movies) and it's mine to keep forever. If I get tired of it, I can resell it to someone else.

jclardy 4y ago

Ignoring the piracy aspect, I don't really understand this mindset. Why must you own a piece of media in perpetuity? Do you value things like going to a live concert where you only get the experience? IMO most Hollywood content made today is really not worth watching a second time.

fifticon 4y ago
That is part of the problem. I want to permanently buy records of older quality movies. Instead of offering me that, they want to sell me jurassic rehash 7.

basscomm 4y ago

> If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it. They are selling it. Just because they're not selling in precisely the way you want them to, that does not mean that you're entitled to the content anyway. You justify your piracy all you want, but let's not pretend that you'd fork over the cash to legitimize your entire library of pirated entertainment if it showed up tomorrow on some store that offered exclusively freedom-respecting DRM-free downloads (okay, maybe you would, but most people wouldn't).

lllollhcdgb 4y ago
They aren't selling it, though, they're "licensing" it, which is indefinite rent. Not the same. Honestly they should be forced to say "rent until we change our minds" instead of "buy" in the advertisements and interfaces.
johndough 4y ago
> They are selling it. Do you mean rent? See parent poster's clarification for the term "buy": > and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"
- charcircuit 4y ago
  How is it renting? You purchase a license. At no time do you ever transfer this license over to someone else to "return the rental license."
  - malka 4y ago
    The licence can be revoken at any given time. This might not be renting, but it is not buying.
jjav 4y ago
> > If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it. > They are selling it. The word "sell" means something different. They are not selling it if all they are doing is renting it. Which is their right if that's what they want, but there needs to be some legislation to prevent them from calling it a sale when it's really merely a short-term rental.