3 ms·

Why is this even confusing? Piracy is piracy, it is the act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these produc

by mrtksn 3y ago

Why is this even confusing? Piracy is piracy, it is the act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these products. And the owning was always about owning the rights to consume some product within some framework, no one ever claimed that you own an album in the sense that you can do whatever you like to do with it if you paid 19.99$. If you want to actually own an album, you do it like Martin Shkreli purchasing the album from Wu-Tang Clan. Pay 4 million dollars and it's all yours. Useless discussions, honestly. It's like claiming that Walter White did not actually die on Breaking bad.

xigoi 3y ago
If I buy a book, I can read it as many times as I want, lend it to other people or even burn it in a fireplace if I want to. Why shouldn’t these rights extend to digital media?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I think it should. Go ahead and implement it, then get content producers distribute their work in your framework. Good luck.
  - epups 3y ago
    It sounds to me like you are trying to say that because technology exists to enforce oppressive stances against basic consumer rights we all had just a few years ago, we should also not make use of technology that exists to circumvent this attack. Is your argument solely based on "it is, therefore it should be", or is there more to it?
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      I think you are misrepresenting the situation and misreading what I said. What I say is, if you don't like how Oppenheimer was funded, produced and then how they tried to collect money from you when you wanted to see it then you should fund and produce your own movie and distribute it the way you see fit. Upload it to YouTube, share a magnet link - whatever. Nothing stops you from not participating in the DRM stuff.
      - stockmarketer 3y ago
        Or... he could keep on with his life and just pirate whatever he feels like? I swear, the messiah complex in you guys.
      - Capricorn2481 3y ago
        Where does this logic end? If you don't like what the government is doing, start your own? There is a huge imbalance between corporation and consumer where decades of generational wealth allows a film like Oppenheimer to be made. It's completely ridiculous to tell people struggling to pay their rent that they should just make their own blockbuster film if they don't want to be dirty thieves. Content distribution has gotten worse overtime to the benefit of nobody but the richest people.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  A book carries the same licensing terms as a DVD and as most digital media. However, the implementation of some of these terms is much easier or harder depending on the actual medium. It's easy to lend a book, it's hard to achieve the same thing with digital media. But in the EU at least, if a platform supports a way for a user to transfer their ability to a different user, then re-selling or lending through this mechanism is legal. The real abuse from digital media sales is the seller maintaing the right to revoke access to the work arbitrarily.
creesch 3y ago
> act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these products. Are you a corporate lawyer? Because this sentence really doesn't mean anything but can be made to mean a lot depending on the context you decide to frame it in. Regardless of that, it highlights the fact that you haven actually read the article itself. Which I highly suggest as it does a good job of pointing out a big issue with how that framework currently works towards consumers.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  This sentence addresses exactly the content of the article: The framework within stuff is funded, created and later compensated. The article is a ramble on the issues of implementation of the enforcement. Only if people would play along we wouldn't have ushers in the cinema, only if people would play along we wouldn't have cashiers but a box where people put the money in and take out the change. Implementation of DRM etc. is quite low quality and is prone to issues. So? Those unhappy should simply avoid content made with that business model and framework of tools enforcing it. The ad-supported model gained a lot of traction and people make a lot of DRM-free content that is distributed for free in exchange of editorial influence or distribution influence. Some even see great success in it, there are YouTube content producers who can afford to make content with considerable production value. If you like what you get stick with it, if you don't - don't. Produce the stuff the way you think should be produced and distribute it the way you think should be distributed, no one is forcing you to use DRM or whatever. That's just a tool that you might choose to use in hope that people will agree to pay you this way.
  - creesch 3y ago
    So you are saying that you have no issue with a framework where people have put money towards material (funded it) but can at any future time be denied access to that content? Furthermore I still believe you haven't actually read the article. As you are heavily focused on what appears to be media content. Where the article touches on digital material in general like software. In general the article does a good job of highlighting an issue the sort of framework that is widely prevelant.
dns_snek 3y ago
> And the owning was always about owning the rights to consume some product within some framework You missed the point. There is not supposed to be a "framework" when it comes to personal use. When you buy a CD, you can copy it to all of your personal devices, archive it, and listen to it unrestricted at any time, at any geographical location until the end of time. You can transcode it, remix it, or edit it for your personal enjoyment. You own your personal copy and you can do with it as you wish. These are things that you're lawfully allowed to do with your licensed copy, if it wasn't for digital distribution and DRM which are now adding restrictions that can permanently revoke your rights to access the media at any time.
- iggldiggl 3y ago
  > When you buy a CD, you can copy it to all of your personal devices, archive it, and listen to it unrestricted at any time, at any geographical location until the end of time. You can transcode it, […] Unless you're in the UK, where as far as I've gathered there's no right for private format shifting, so ripping your own CDs is technically illegal. Or unless you're talking about books and live in Germany, because there books have been excepted from the right to full private copies beyond limited excerpts (unless it's an out-of-print work) and the law was never updated to deal with digital books, so technically I'm not allowed to keep multiple copies of the same digital book on the various different devices I own (plus their backups).

by mrtksn 3y ago

xigoi 3y ago

If I buy a book, I can read it as many times as I want, lend it to other people or even burn it in a fireplace if I want to. Why shouldn’t these rights extend to digital media?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mrtksn 3y ago
I think it should. Go ahead and implement it, then get content producers distribute their work in your framework. Good luck.
- epups 3y ago
  It sounds to me like you are trying to say that because technology exists to enforce oppressive stances against basic consumer rights we all had just a few years ago, we should also not make use of technology that exists to circumvent this attack. Is your argument solely based on "it is, therefore it should be", or is there more to it?
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    I think you are misrepresenting the situation and misreading what I said. What I say is, if you don't like how Oppenheimer was funded, produced and then how they tried to collect money from you when you wanted to see it then you should fund and produce your own movie and distribute it the way you see fit. Upload it to YouTube, share a magnet link - whatever. Nothing stops you from not participating in the DRM stuff.
    - stockmarketer 3y ago
      Or... he could keep on with his life and just pirate whatever he feels like? I swear, the messiah complex in you guys.
    - Capricorn2481 3y ago
      Where does this logic end? If you don't like what the government is doing, start your own? There is a huge imbalance between corporation and consumer where decades of generational wealth allows a film like Oppenheimer to be made. It's completely ridiculous to tell people struggling to pay their rent that they should just make their own blockbuster film if they don't want to be dirty thieves. Content distribution has gotten worse overtime to the benefit of nobody but the richest people.
tsimionescu 3y ago
A book carries the same licensing terms as a DVD and as most digital media. However, the implementation of some of these terms is much easier or harder depending on the actual medium. It's easy to lend a book, it's hard to achieve the same thing with digital media. But in the EU at least, if a platform supports a way for a user to transfer their ability to a different user, then re-selling or lending through this mechanism is legal. The real abuse from digital media sales is the seller maintaing the right to revoke access to the work arbitrarily.

creesch 3y ago

> act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these products. Are you a corporate lawyer? Because this sentence really doesn't mean anything but can be made to mean a lot depending on the context you decide to frame it in. Regardless of that, it highlights the fact that you haven actually read the article itself. Which I highly suggest as it does a good job of pointing out a big issue with how that framework currently works towards consumers.

mrtksn 3y ago
This sentence addresses exactly the content of the article: The framework within stuff is funded, created and later compensated. The article is a ramble on the issues of implementation of the enforcement. Only if people would play along we wouldn't have ushers in the cinema, only if people would play along we wouldn't have cashiers but a box where people put the money in and take out the change. Implementation of DRM etc. is quite low quality and is prone to issues. So? Those unhappy should simply avoid content made with that business model and framework of tools enforcing it. The ad-supported model gained a lot of traction and people make a lot of DRM-free content that is distributed for free in exchange of editorial influence or distribution influence. Some even see great success in it, there are YouTube content producers who can afford to make content with considerable production value. If you like what you get stick with it, if you don't - don't. Produce the stuff the way you think should be produced and distribute it the way you think should be distributed, no one is forcing you to use DRM or whatever. That's just a tool that you might choose to use in hope that people will agree to pay you this way.
- creesch 3y ago
  So you are saying that you have no issue with a framework where people have put money towards material (funded it) but can at any future time be denied access to that content? Furthermore I still believe you haven't actually read the article. As you are heavily focused on what appears to be media content. Where the article touches on digital material in general like software. In general the article does a good job of highlighting an issue the sort of framework that is widely prevelant.

dns_snek 3y ago

> And the owning was always about owning the rights to consume some product within some framework You missed the point. There is not supposed to be a "framework" when it comes to personal use. When you buy a CD, you can copy it to all of your personal devices, archive it, and listen to it unrestricted at any time, at any geographical location until the end of time. You can transcode it, remix it, or edit it for your personal enjoyment. You own your personal copy and you can do with it as you wish. These are things that you're lawfully allowed to do with your licensed copy, if it wasn't for digital distribution and DRM which are now adding restrictions that can permanently revoke your rights to access the media at any time.

iggldiggl 3y ago
> When you buy a CD, you can copy it to all of your personal devices, archive it, and listen to it unrestricted at any time, at any geographical location until the end of time. You can transcode it, […] Unless you're in the UK, where as far as I've gathered there's no right for private format shifting, so ripping your own CDs is technically illegal. Or unless you're talking about books and live in Germany, because there books have been excepted from the right to full private copies beyond limited excerpts (unless it's an out-of-print work) and the law was never updated to deal with digital books, so technically I'm not allowed to keep multiple copies of the same digital book on the various different devices I own (plus their backups).