6 ms·

"If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"

193 points by frogulis 3y ago

zzo38computer 3y ago
If Wired does not want to write the entire disclaimer (whether because it is too long or for whatever other reason), then perhaps "WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE" should be good enough. > My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you. Yes, I think they are correct, and whoever sells you such thing should be sued for fraud. Although, forced automatic updates can be a problem anyways, together with many other problems of modern computers, such as "always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification" and much more problems than just that, actually. > Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury! Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to remotely delete your files like that anyways. But, nevertheless, it is why WORM media is important (although I don't know how to make it secure enough against remote tampering, if the writer device can somehow be programmed to destroy it; however, you could print it out, or even write it out by hand if you have to).
buserror 3y ago
It is just not even just deleting shows, they do whatever they like. For example, if you buy a "HD" show on youtube, you are actually getting 480p, because something something DRM will prevents you from playing that HD version you bought on anything but a locked up air gapped computer in Youtube's VP's own office. This is a scandal that has been going on for years -- they still sell you HD versions of the movies and shows knowing full well you can't possibly play them in anything but 480p
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  What do you actually need to playback the HD version in a browser? A recent-ish version of Chrome on Windows and an HDCP connection? It's annoying sure, but not an outlandish requirement.
  - xscott 3y ago
    You don't need any of it. But if you buy it, you should expect to receive it, and if you don't receive it, you should get your money back.
    - 6510 3y ago
      How about: If you buy it you should just download it? It's the only way to complete the transaction.
  - saghm 3y ago
    Wait, why is requiring Windows not outlandish? It's not like other platforms or browsers don't have DRM support. Even on Firefox on Linux, there's a setting to enable DRM-required media.
    - KeplerBoy 3y ago
      I don't know what is actually required. I'm asking.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        It is a little different from publisher to publisher. Basically a main-stream OS, plus hardware attestation of any displays, plus an official browser version with the right codecs will get you there with no issues. If you are missing any of those pieces, you get downgraded on quality for sure.
        buserror 3y ago
        No you don't really, google around and you'll see that whatever you use, unless it's a google stick (not even sure either), you won't get HD. Seems the DRM for displays has been cracked a while back and everyone has just downgraded playback silently ever since. With zero notifications, refunds or anything of course.
- eps 3y ago
  Please, quit whinning. Microsoft's been working on it for ages and they are almost there. That's exactly the point of PMP in Windows (Protected media path) and (almost) mandatory TPM in Windows 11. Not long now... and then you'll rent. May be even pay for the accrued mouse mileage, who knows.
  - buserror 3y ago
    What sort of reply is this? Does it address the fact they sell a product and you aren't getting what you paid for?
    - huhtenberg 3y ago
      Sarcasm. That was a sarcasm.
      - danaris 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - eps 3y ago
      It's a bitter joke.
josho 3y ago
Words matter. So let’s be clear on both sides. It isn’t piracy. It isn’t stealing. It’s copyright infringement.
- saulpw 3y ago
  Copyright infringement is about publishing, not consuming. If I copy a friend's legally-purchased .epub that's like borrowing their legally-purchased printed book. Same as if I take a book from a Little Library in my neighborhood, or borrow a paper book from the city library. Why is the transfer of digital content more restricted? A print publisher can't prevent a library from lending their book as many times as they want, so why do we give digital publishers that ability?
  - dr_petes 3y ago
    Without sounding overly pessimistic, but I have the opinion that copyright laws were written and developed in a different era. Finical interests, not the public’s, are to blame for the overly restrictive copyright laws.
    - happymellon 3y ago
      > but I have the opinion that copyright laws were written and developed in a different era. Unless I misunderstand what you are says, I'm pretty sure we had libraries throughout history.
    - saulpw 3y ago
      The original US copyright law was 14 years with a 14-year extension if the author was still alive. Certainly financial interest (Disney) is to blame for that incrementally becoming 70 years after the death of the author.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Quoting Wikipedia: "Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement Copying a friend's legally-purchased epub is copyright infringement the same way that making a photocopy of a physical book is copyright infringement. It is not the same taking a book from a library due to the "first-sale doctrine", which Wikipedia describes as "an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine > so why do we give digital publishers that ability Because people agreed to special licensing terms that restricted what they could do, in favor of convenience.
lifestyleguru 3y ago
What's the problem even?! I'm back to torrenting, it feels as awesome as ever.
ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
Piracy is a moral duty as I said earlier before some brave souls flagged that comment.
- KyleBerezin 3y ago
  It's a reductionist attitude.
  - davidguetta 3y ago
    Reducing what exactly ? The movie industry has done nothing but booming for decades with arguably a decreasing level of quality if anything. People who go out of their way to fight against piracy do so for nothing else than of feeling good about themselves about some weird moral stance that 100% unconsequential about anything real. There nothing but better hills to die on if you are serious about picking a fight
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
I just don't care enough about video media to watch anything in the first place, so I've never really needed to pirate movies or shows after 2009/2010. I don't pirate anything anymore but I do still have me booty from previous high seas adventures. It's been mixed in with my data for so long I'm not sure I could separate it if I tried lol
- 6510 3y ago
  It's so important we should design our entire civilization around this. We cant just take your word for it, we need DRM brain chips to make sure.
cameldrv 3y ago
Both the Photoshop/Pantone and the recent movie cases revolve around the issue where the seller only purchased a limited time license, but then sold a perpetual license to the content. To me this is simple fraud.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > To me this is simple fraud. There's a lot of it about
akomtu 3y ago
If copyright was applied to books it would be illegal to read books you didn't pay for. Storing such books would be a crime, sharing such books would be a federal crime and organizing a book reading club would make you famous in the criminal world.
- armada651 3y ago
  Copyright is applied to books and it is illegal to organize a book club where you hand out copies you made of your books. Handing out the copy of a book you paid for is of course perfectly legal as is giving away or selling your original Blu-Ray discs. Even though entertainment execs would love to outlaw that as well.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Copyright is applied to books. The books you have on your Kindle are subject to exactly the same issues. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989... For physical books, you have first-sale doctrine rights. For digital books, your license agreement means you usually agree those rights don't apply. That's why storing and sharing physical books is not a crime - you have actually purchased them.
Cosi1125 3y ago
[Off-topic] This is golden: > Like Pavel Chekov says, a phaser on the bridge in Act I is going to go off by Act III.
- lorenzk 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun
  - Cosi1125 3y ago
    Yes, this is the original [Anton] Chekhov's gun :-)
MichaelRo 3y ago
Reminds me of this (Windows Update): https://imgur.com/a/zwyBSr0 https://imgur.com/a/zwyBSr0
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cyanydeez 3y ago
SaaS isn't owning and definitely is a response to piracy and lockin.
SSLy 3y ago
reverse dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] Well not really, Cory and his stupid weird permalinks.... Discussion ended up over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899
samdunham 3y ago
Piracy isn't and never was "stealing." It's piracy. They are distinctly different things.
AlexSmith_G 3y ago
[dead]

193 points by frogulis 3y ago

If Wired does not want to write the entire disclaimer (whether because it is too long or for whatever other reason), then perhaps "WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE" should be good enough. > My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you. Yes, I think they are correct, and whoever sells you such thing should be sued for fraud. Although, forced automatic updates can be a problem anyways, together with many other problems of modern computers, such as "always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification" and much more problems than just that, actually. > Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury! Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to remotely delete your files like that anyways. But, nevertheless, it is why WORM media is important (although I don't know how to make it secure enough against remote tampering, if the writer device can somehow be programmed to destroy it; however, you could print it out, or even write it out by hand if you have to).

buserror 3y ago

It is just not even just deleting shows, they do whatever they like. For example, if you buy a "HD" show on youtube, you are actually getting 480p, because something something DRM will prevents you from playing that HD version you bought on anything but a locked up air gapped computer in Youtube's VP's own office. This is a scandal that has been going on for years -- they still sell you HD versions of the movies and shows knowing full well you can't possibly play them in anything but 480p

KeplerBoy 3y ago
What do you actually need to playback the HD version in a browser? A recent-ish version of Chrome on Windows and an HDCP connection? It's annoying sure, but not an outlandish requirement.
- xscott 3y ago
  You don't need any of it. But if you buy it, you should expect to receive it, and if you don't receive it, you should get your money back.
  - 6510 3y ago
    How about: If you buy it you should just download it? It's the only way to complete the transaction.
- saghm 3y ago
  Wait, why is requiring Windows not outlandish? It's not like other platforms or browsers don't have DRM support. Even on Firefox on Linux, there's a setting to enable DRM-required media.
  - KeplerBoy 3y ago
    I don't know what is actually required. I'm asking.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      It is a little different from publisher to publisher. Basically a main-stream OS, plus hardware attestation of any displays, plus an official browser version with the right codecs will get you there with no issues. If you are missing any of those pieces, you get downgraded on quality for sure.
      - buserror 3y ago
        No you don't really, google around and you'll see that whatever you use, unless it's a google stick (not even sure either), you won't get HD. Seems the DRM for displays has been cracked a while back and everyone has just downgraded playback silently ever since. With zero notifications, refunds or anything of course.
eps 3y ago
Please, quit whinning. Microsoft's been working on it for ages and they are almost there. That's exactly the point of PMP in Windows (Protected media path) and (almost) mandatory TPM in Windows 11. Not long now... and then you'll rent. May be even pay for the accrued mouse mileage, who knows.
- buserror 3y ago
  What sort of reply is this? Does it address the fact they sell a product and you aren't getting what you paid for?
  - huhtenberg 3y ago
    Sarcasm. That was a sarcasm.
    - danaris 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - eps 3y ago
    It's a bitter joke.

josho 3y ago

Words matter. So let’s be clear on both sides. It isn’t piracy. It isn’t stealing. It’s copyright infringement.

saulpw 3y ago
Copyright infringement is about publishing, not consuming. If I copy a friend's legally-purchased .epub that's like borrowing their legally-purchased printed book. Same as if I take a book from a Little Library in my neighborhood, or borrow a paper book from the city library. Why is the transfer of digital content more restricted? A print publisher can't prevent a library from lending their book as many times as they want, so why do we give digital publishers that ability?
- dr_petes 3y ago
  Without sounding overly pessimistic, but I have the opinion that copyright laws were written and developed in a different era. Finical interests, not the public’s, are to blame for the overly restrictive copyright laws.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    > but I have the opinion that copyright laws were written and developed in a different era. Unless I misunderstand what you are says, I'm pretty sure we had libraries throughout history.
  - saulpw 3y ago
    The original US copyright law was 14 years with a 14-year extension if the author was still alive. Certainly financial interest (Disney) is to blame for that incrementally becoming 70 years after the death of the author.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Quoting Wikipedia: "Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement Copying a friend's legally-purchased epub is copyright infringement the same way that making a photocopy of a physical book is copyright infringement. It is not the same taking a book from a library due to the "first-sale doctrine", which Wikipedia describes as "an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine > so why do we give digital publishers that ability Because people agreed to special licensing terms that restricted what they could do, in favor of convenience.

lifestyleguru 3y ago

What's the problem even?! I'm back to torrenting, it feels as awesome as ever.

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago

Piracy is a moral duty as I said earlier before some brave souls flagged that comment.

KyleBerezin 3y ago
It's a reductionist attitude.
- davidguetta 3y ago
  Reducing what exactly ? The movie industry has done nothing but booming for decades with arguably a decreasing level of quality if anything. People who go out of their way to fight against piracy do so for nothing else than of feeling good about themselves about some weird moral stance that 100% unconsequential about anything real. There nothing but better hills to die on if you are serious about picking a fight

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

I just don't care enough about video media to watch anything in the first place, so I've never really needed to pirate movies or shows after 2009/2010. I don't pirate anything anymore but I do still have me booty from previous high seas adventures. It's been mixed in with my data for so long I'm not sure I could separate it if I tried lol

6510 3y ago
It's so important we should design our entire civilization around this. We cant just take your word for it, we need DRM brain chips to make sure.

cameldrv 3y ago

Both the Photoshop/Pantone and the recent movie cases revolve around the issue where the seller only purchased a limited time license, but then sold a perpetual license to the content. To me this is simple fraud.

15457345234 3y ago
> To me this is simple fraud. There's a lot of it about

akomtu 3y ago

If copyright was applied to books it would be illegal to read books you didn't pay for. Storing such books would be a crime, sharing such books would be a federal crime and organizing a book reading club would make you famous in the criminal world.

armada651 3y ago
Copyright is applied to books and it is illegal to organize a book club where you hand out copies you made of your books. Handing out the copy of a book you paid for is of course perfectly legal as is giving away or selling your original Blu-Ray discs. Even though entertainment execs would love to outlaw that as well.
eesmith 3y ago
Copyright is applied to books. The books you have on your Kindle are subject to exactly the same issues. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989... For physical books, you have first-sale doctrine rights. For digital books, your license agreement means you usually agree those rights don't apply. That's why storing and sharing physical books is not a crime - you have actually purchased them.

Cosi1125 3y ago

[Off-topic] This is golden: > Like Pavel Chekov says, a phaser on the bridge in Act I is going to go off by Act III.

lorenzk 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun
- Cosi1125 3y ago
  Yes, this is the original [Anton] Chekhov's gun :-)

MichaelRo 3y ago

Reminds me of this (Windows Update): https://imgur.com/a/zwyBSr0 https://imgur.com/a/zwyBSr0

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cyanydeez 3y ago

SaaS isn't owning and definitely is a response to piracy and lockin.

SSLy 3y ago

reverse dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] Well not really, Cory and his stupid weird permalinks.... Discussion ended up over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899

samdunham 3y ago

Piracy isn't and never was "stealing." It's piracy. They are distinctly different things.

AlexSmith_G 3y ago

[dead]