3 ms·

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

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.

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.