3 ms·

"If paying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing." - Louis Rossmann

sonicanatidae 3y ago
My favorite variation is the, "well yes, you did buy seat heaters in your car, the hardware is there, the software is there and you over paid for all of it, including taxes. Now, that'll be $10 per month for us to enable it".
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  That's no different than IBM selling a mainframe with more processors and storage than you've paid to access.
  - sonicanatidae 3y ago
    You're correct. There is no material difference.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Except that the IBM one is B2B, preceded by negotiations. But then, what is important is what the customers were told they are buying. And while IBM didn't sell anything they didn't deliver (on the mainframe business), the cars are sold through 3rd parties famous for being sleazy, so I'd bet their customers experience was all over the place.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
f4c39012 3y ago
I understand this, but when there is a charge for viewing then piracy is stealing. My issue with this is the use of the word "buy". If DRM can remove my access, and I don't have perpetual ownership and control of that DRM, then it isn't buying and shouldn't be labelled as such. I can then make an informed choice "rent" vs "watch-as-many-times-as-the-drm-provider-lets-me". It should have the side effect of encouraging there to be a _real_ "buy" option
- rpgbr 3y ago
  >“but when there is a charge for viewing then piracy is stealing.” No, it's not. When you steal something, you get something from someone who lose that thing, which isn't the case with digital piracy.
  - f4c39012 3y ago
    Ok, point taken. Not "stealing", but still not paying the price of access. Making a movie or tv show etc. isn't free of cost, and if you want to watch it then it has a value
    - rpgbr 3y ago
      So anti-piracy people should change their message. Calling people that pirate stuff thieves is rude; most of them opt for piracy because can't pay, doesn't care too much to pay or is averse of industry praxis such this Sony's clusterfuck.
      - f4c39012 3y ago
        I guess "stealing" is done by "thieves" but i didn't mean to be so harsh, next time i'll be more careful with my words. Whilst copying bits has negligible cost, the _original_ cost of production has to be borne by someone, do the people paying to watch pay more to cover those that don't pay? The price of access is part of the license, another example would being crediting sources when using cc by-sa material. Sony's actions here don't engender any sympathy, but with piracy i'm more concerned with the writers and artists etc.. What I _meant_ to emphasise was that the button shouldn't be labelled "buy" if someone else can take it away. Not allowing this label this would help steer people away from situations like Sony just created, and help encourage DRM-free options.

My favorite variation is the, "well yes, you did buy seat heaters in your car, the hardware is there, the software is there and you over paid for all of it, including taxes. Now, that'll be $10 per month for us to enable it".

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
That's no different than IBM selling a mainframe with more processors and storage than you've paid to access.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  You're correct. There is no material difference.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Except that the IBM one is B2B, preceded by negotiations. But then, what is important is what the customers were told they are buying. And while IBM didn't sell anything they didn't deliver (on the mainframe business), the cars are sold through 3rd parties famous for being sleazy, so I'd bet their customers experience was all over the place.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

f4c39012 3y ago

I understand this, but when there is a charge for viewing then piracy is stealing. My issue with this is the use of the word "buy". If DRM can remove my access, and I don't have perpetual ownership and control of that DRM, then it isn't buying and shouldn't be labelled as such. I can then make an informed choice "rent" vs "watch-as-many-times-as-the-drm-provider-lets-me". It should have the side effect of encouraging there to be a _real_ "buy" option

rpgbr 3y ago
>“but when there is a charge for viewing then piracy is stealing.” No, it's not. When you steal something, you get something from someone who lose that thing, which isn't the case with digital piracy.
- f4c39012 3y ago
  Ok, point taken. Not "stealing", but still not paying the price of access. Making a movie or tv show etc. isn't free of cost, and if you want to watch it then it has a value
  - rpgbr 3y ago
    So anti-piracy people should change their message. Calling people that pirate stuff thieves is rude; most of them opt for piracy because can't pay, doesn't care too much to pay or is averse of industry praxis such this Sony's clusterfuck.
    - f4c39012 3y ago
      I guess "stealing" is done by "thieves" but i didn't mean to be so harsh, next time i'll be more careful with my words. Whilst copying bits has negligible cost, the _original_ cost of production has to be borne by someone, do the people paying to watch pay more to cover those that don't pay? The price of access is part of the license, another example would being crediting sources when using cc by-sa material. Sony's actions here don't engender any sympathy, but with piracy i'm more concerned with the writers and artists etc.. What I _meant_ to emphasise was that the button shouldn't be labelled "buy" if someone else can take it away. Not allowing this label this would help steer people away from situations like Sony just created, and help encourage DRM-free options.