2 ms·

> They shouldn't be allowed to do that and still prevent me from pirating the content This is the only part I partially disagree with - privacy is a thing, and

> They shouldn't be allowed to do that and still prevent me from pirating the content This is the only part I partially disagree with - privacy is a thing, and privacy of personal information is (or should be) a thing as well. This is the whole concept behind GDPR... In case you don't think this is an actual problem, go look up Hunter Moore and the ethical issues with unfettered dissemination of information. Of course its completely backwards that "movies" are given better protection than medical or other sensitive information.... The solution is not rampant piracy, for media concerns, all media/games/etc should be archived by e.g. the Library of Congress and available for purchase, unless determined by due process e.g. that the content is harmful (revenge porn, e.g.). This doesn't need to be a convenient process, obtaining e.g. such media can be a matter of requesting/buying/shipping encrypted usb drives around, perhaps (or purchasing a key for encrypted files online), licensing to distributors such as Netflix should still be the norm and more economically/ergonomically viable option. But I do at least agree that piracy itself is not the problem, it is a symptom of a larger socio-economic issue.

LoganDark 2y ago
Copyright shouldn't be what I have on my personal information. That's the wrong model to use. I'm not selling my own personal information and I'm not miffed by the idea of losing out on customers. In fact, I don't even want customers. My information is already being sold without my consent or involvement, and that's fucked up. I don't want them to come to me, I want them to go to jail. The correct model is indeed privacy, which is that people should have the right to their PII not being sold or distributed without their express, informed consent. This has nothing to do with piracy or copyright. I'd say people should have the right to their PII not even being recorded in the first place, but consent to recording is often implied when you voluntarily provide it in exchange for a service, so we still need additional protections on top. I'd still appreciate not being recorded without my express consent, though. I appreciate countries that have laws against it. I do appreciate GDPR and its effects on data storage, retrieval and deletion. But it's only one piece of a complete set of privacy-preserving regulations, IMHO.

LoganDark 2y ago

Copyright shouldn't be what I have on my personal information. That's the wrong model to use. I'm not selling my own personal information and I'm not miffed by the idea of losing out on customers. In fact, I don't even want customers. My information is already being sold without my consent or involvement, and that's fucked up. I don't want them to come to me, I want them to go to jail. The correct model is indeed privacy, which is that people should have the right to their PII not being sold or distributed without their express, informed consent. This has nothing to do with piracy or copyright. I'd say people should have the right to their PII not even being recorded in the first place, but consent to recording is often implied when you voluntarily provide it in exchange for a service, so we still need additional protections on top. I'd still appreciate not being recorded without my express consent, though. I appreciate countries that have laws against it. I do appreciate GDPR and its effects on data storage, retrieval and deletion. But it's only one piece of a complete set of privacy-preserving regulations, IMHO.