5 ms·

I never got this. Software is stored, bytes are a physicality, just more easily distributeable. They even have some measurable weight theoretically, with a sim

I never got this. Software is stored, bytes are a physicality, just more easily distributeable. They even have some measurable weight theoretically, with a similar attributed value like an artwork or book - that is subjective and hard to interpret.

otterley 2y ago
It’s not the mass that matters. It’s the medium. You only own the medium, not the content. This was true of physical media (books, phonographs, etc.) and is true of downloaded media. You might own a paper copy of your favorite book, but you don’t own its words, and the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. If the book is destroyed in a fire, you must buy a new copy. Similarly, you might own your Kindle, but you don’t own the content in it. You can read the content, but you can’t copy it.But there’s a minor advantage of a digital license: if your Kindle is destroyed in a fire, the publisher allows you to read-download the content to a new device.
- LocalH 2y ago
  > the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. In theory, the law only applies to distribution. Also, fair use and fair dealing exist in multiple jurisdictions, which includes personal-only usage. A company would have a hard time achieving a legal judgement against you for the mere act of copying a book. Distributing it? Sure. Copyright law explicitly allows for backups, at least in the US, which is where most of the companies exhibiting this anti-ownership behavior are located and thus bound by US law, especially when the consumer is also US. Owning a license means nothing when the other party to the license can revoke it at any time without further consideration.
  - otterley 2y ago
    As someone who holds an IP certificate and JD diploma from a respected law school, I can tell you that most of what you’re saying is utterly false. There are some exceptions carved out by the Library of Congress to the DMCA, but I would advise you to educate yourself before posting further on the subject. You’re right that violation doesn’t necessarily lead to prosecution and liability—people break the law all the time without being prosecuted for it—but nevertheless, you risk getting yourself into hot water if you violate another’s rights.
    - whattheheckheck 2y ago
      If you extract a transcript of a youtube video and save that file for use later is that a copyright violation?
    - LocalH 2y ago
      Quite honestly and frankly, I don't consider the DMCA to be just law. Regardless of that view, personal backups are absolutely allowed under copyright law. The DMCA only criminalizes the cracking of "effective" access control, as far as I know.
      - otterley 2y ago
        It's one thing to believe a law to be unjust. It's another to make false claims about what the law is. > Regardless of that view, personal backups are absolutely allowed under copyright law Under which section of the Copyright Act? Under which court ruling? Keep in mind that "fair use" is a legal doctrine that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not an absolute shield a defendant can raise as an impenetrable defense. No court has ever held that a licensee can, without exception, make a copy of a protected work as a backup. Where are you getting this bogus information from?
        LocalH 2y ago
        Personal backups are at least allowed for software, per 17 USC 117, and I'm not aware that the DMCA altered that, it only added the nonsense about "effective access control" which can legally be as weak as ROT13. Perhaps not for non-software media. Copyright has been broken for decades, however. It's tilted away from the average person and towards big moneyed copyright holders, who vacuum up every IP they can.
  - account42 2y ago
    Also, the right of first sale exists for physical copies. This means for a physical book you are actually allowed to distribute the content as long as you do not retain a copy yourself.

otterley 2y ago

It’s not the mass that matters. It’s the medium. You only own the medium, not the content. This was true of physical media (books, phonographs, etc.) and is true of downloaded media. You might own a paper copy of your favorite book, but you don’t own its words, and the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. If the book is destroyed in a fire, you must buy a new copy. Similarly, you might own your Kindle, but you don’t own the content in it. You can read the content, but you can’t copy it.But there’s a minor advantage of a digital license: if your Kindle is destroyed in a fire, the publisher allows you to read-download the content to a new device.

LocalH 2y ago
> the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. In theory, the law only applies to distribution. Also, fair use and fair dealing exist in multiple jurisdictions, which includes personal-only usage. A company would have a hard time achieving a legal judgement against you for the mere act of copying a book. Distributing it? Sure. Copyright law explicitly allows for backups, at least in the US, which is where most of the companies exhibiting this anti-ownership behavior are located and thus bound by US law, especially when the consumer is also US. Owning a license means nothing when the other party to the license can revoke it at any time without further consideration.
- otterley 2y ago
  As someone who holds an IP certificate and JD diploma from a respected law school, I can tell you that most of what you’re saying is utterly false. There are some exceptions carved out by the Library of Congress to the DMCA, but I would advise you to educate yourself before posting further on the subject. You’re right that violation doesn’t necessarily lead to prosecution and liability—people break the law all the time without being prosecuted for it—but nevertheless, you risk getting yourself into hot water if you violate another’s rights.
  - whattheheckheck 2y ago
    If you extract a transcript of a youtube video and save that file for use later is that a copyright violation?
  - LocalH 2y ago
    Quite honestly and frankly, I don't consider the DMCA to be just law. Regardless of that view, personal backups are absolutely allowed under copyright law. The DMCA only criminalizes the cracking of "effective" access control, as far as I know.
    - otterley 2y ago
      It's one thing to believe a law to be unjust. It's another to make false claims about what the law is. > Regardless of that view, personal backups are absolutely allowed under copyright law Under which section of the Copyright Act? Under which court ruling? Keep in mind that "fair use" is a legal doctrine that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not an absolute shield a defendant can raise as an impenetrable defense. No court has ever held that a licensee can, without exception, make a copy of a protected work as a backup. Where are you getting this bogus information from?
      - LocalH 2y ago
        Personal backups are at least allowed for software, per 17 USC 117, and I'm not aware that the DMCA altered that, it only added the nonsense about "effective access control" which can legally be as weak as ROT13. Perhaps not for non-software media. Copyright has been broken for decades, however. It's tilted away from the average person and towards big moneyed copyright holders, who vacuum up every IP they can.
- account42 2y ago
  Also, the right of first sale exists for physical copies. This means for a physical book you are actually allowed to distribute the content as long as you do not retain a copy yourself.