14 ms·

I guess it doesn't surprise me that our corporate overlords do everything possible to make it more annoying to watch their media, but I don't have to like it. I

I guess it doesn't surprise me that our corporate overlords do everything possible to make it more annoying to watch their media, but I don't have to like it. It's frustrating, because at this point it's going to be extremely difficult to avoid DRM (quasi) legally. I HYPOTHETICALLY have over 400 Blu-ray movies, and about 40 complete series. I HYPOTHETICALLY painstakingly ripped all of them, broke their DRM, and watch it with my Jellyfin server. I don't put these videos on ThePirateBay, and the Blu-rays are all legit copies. I've gotten conflicting information about whether or not what I'm doing is legal, but I certainly don't think what I'm doing there is unethical. But now, how exactly do I get DRM-free movies while also paying for them? They aren't really producing Blu-rays for every movie anymore, if I want to buy a movie I have to get it from Amazon or something and stream it, with the corporation reserving the right to take it away at any time. Is the only way of getting and preserving media piracy now? I genuinely don't know of a way to get DRM-free media anymore without stealing it.

6stringmerc 2y ago
I have done similar work with physical CDs for most of my life to ensure 320kbps quality as mp3 and also share your frustration at the state of the legal landscape and consumer hostile (monopolistic) practices. I get downvoted frequently here for mentioning the landscape should change but simply side-stepping the laws is still just that and throwing tantrums is a bad look (re: my critique of Ars Technica / TechDirt in another thread). Unfortunately it seems like legislation will have to be used to fix the problems we both face, but the likelihood is slim. Perhaps a wholesale collapse of the Federal Government would free states to experiment with new approaches. Thanks for sharing and I really wish I had an answer as well.
- tombert 2y ago
  Yeah, I have a lot of CDs as well, I rip them to FLAC because, even though I doubt I can actually hear a diff between 320kbps and FLAC, it makes me feel like it sounds better. I find it highly doubtful that legislation will save us with this. It seems like congress, at least in the US, has worked hard to make copyrights longer and longer and worse and terrible. I would love it if they prove me wrong, and made copyright in the US much better, but I think corporations are too intermingled with politics to make that likely.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    FLAC's nice because it's future-proof, you can encode it into whatever you need with no loss. 350-400MB for an album hardly seems worth worrying about in a world where if you want a top-quality film rip you're looking at 40-80GB—and you can fit hundreds of such albums on a chip the size of a 1-year-old's pinkie nail that cost tens of dollars, let alone an actual spinning rust hard drive. I was all about high-quality MP3 in like the early '00s, but now? FLAC's fine, music's not going to be the reason I run out of disk space.
    - tombert 2y ago
      I have a 288TB storage array, so I basically have infinite storage. I never compress anything unless it is lossless lol.
- ewzimm 2y ago
  CD audio is unencrypted, so nothing needs to be broken in order to copy it, unlike even the extremely weak encryption on DVDs. Is there any legal issue with making a personal copy of unencrypted media?
  - david_allison 2y ago
    I believe format shifting (ripping CDs for personal use) is still illegal in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting https://www.gov.uk/government/news/quashing-of-private-copying-exception https://www.gov.uk/government/news/quashing-of-private-copyi... Probably due to the following, but can't find it from a quick Google: R (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723
bitwize 2y ago
You have just confessed to a federal felony under 17 U.S.C. section 1201, punishable by up to five years in prison. Breaking DRM, no matter how weak, is in and of itself a crime, separate from copyright infringement, unless it falls within one of the specific enumerated exceptions set forth by the Librarian of Congress, listed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24563/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24... > But now, how exactly do I get DRM-free movies while also paying for them? "That's the neat thing -- you don't." Part of the point of copyright is that the copyright owner solely determines whether and how their work gets distributed or exhibited. If they want to make it available exclusively through streaming, so be it. If they want never to release a movie again (see: Song of the South), so be it. You don't have the right to have your own copy of a movie, nor even to see it more than once. You can do these things only inasmuch as the copyright owners allow you to.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- timewizard 2y ago
  > the copyright owner solely determines whether and how their work gets distributed or exhibited Legally, they do not. They can control the _first sale_ and no others.
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    I believe you're referring to the First Sale Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109)? On a cursory search, I believe while you can resell, lend, or give away your copy, ripping it is problematic because you need to break the DRM involved, which explicitly goes against the DMCA (you'd be "accessing its content in an unauthorized way"). I didn't know the legal situation around the topic was this dire over there, I'm a bit surprised to be honest. I thought personal use was okay, but after an extensive discussion with my lawyer (gpt4o), seems to me that the parent comment is unfortunately correct.
    - 2y ago
mvanbaak 2y ago
Most movies are still released on DVD/Bluray. See https://www.blu-ray.com https://www.blu-ray.com
- stego-tech 2y ago
  > Most[1] movies[2] are still released on DVD/Bluray[3]. See https://www.blu-ray.com[4] https://www.blu-ray.com[4] [1] Most theatrically-run movies [2] Specifically movies, not TV Shows [3] Which has issues with rot, failure, misprints, and inferior encodes compared to some streaming services (particularly where content is available in 4K HDR streaming, but only gets a poorly tonemapped SDR Blu-Ray release) [4] The site is known to speculate on potential releases of content and is not a definitive source of what is, has been, or will be available for retail purchase. Just clearing those points up as a preservationist myself. Years ago, the scales tipped very clearly in favor of piracy as preservation, since most streaming content just doesn't get a retail package anymore.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Sony also announced the end of recordable blu-rays: https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/24/24350993/sony-recordable-blu-ray-end-production-no-successor https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/24/24350993/sony-recordable-... Obviously that's not necessarily reflective of commercial movies or TV shows, but it does signal to me that Sony is planning on winding it down.
    - stego-tech 2y ago
      Agreed. The conversation we should be having is, "How do we enable content ownership in a post-physical media era while preserving the rights and freedoms of physical media ownership, i.e. personal backups, content transcoding for personal use, lending to friends and family, etc", not "How do we preserve physical media". The content and the flexibility of use is the point, not the medium. It's why DRM is antithetical to consumer use, as its function isn't to stop piracy so much as to promote difficulty of use (and therefore drive revenue). Switching to subjective preferences, I'd much rather be able to buy DRM-free 4K HDR encodes with my customer ID invisibly watermarked into the content to combat piracy, rather than yet another DRM-enabled service. It's how music sales generally work (sans the watermarking), and the industry seems perfectly fine with their post-DRM reality.
exe34 2y ago
I have a goal that once it gets "hard enough", I will disengage with modern cinematic culture and rely on older media, and hopefully read more books. Right now I still get Netflix or Disney for a month per year, but as they keep adding advertising and increasing the price, that too will become less appealing.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  I'm catching up on the silent film era. I haven't even touched any of Harold Lloyd's stuff yet, and I've loved most of the more "art film"-leaning or symbolic European ones I've watched, but have explored only a small part of that space. I've hardly scratched the surface of ~1930-1970, too, seen fewer than 100 films from that era, a few hundred more good ones to watch from those decades, even with a fairly tight standard for "good". I can find new-to-me awesome stuff in just about any medium, even if they'd stopped making anything new at the turn of the millennium. Hardly matters to me.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  I've basically taken this tact as well, but because I want to be a Luddite about AI video and avoid exposing myself to it, so that rules out Reddit and Instagram and YouTube. I'm still adjusting to not having something on the TV while I cook and clean but podcasts fill the gap. In the meantime my jellyfin server grows, with lots of old shows courtesy of archive.org. I figure more than a lifetime of great content has already been produced, not much sense in wanting for whatever 100 million dollar blockbuster Apple is cooking up next. Reading before bed is a good habit, when I'm in a book I like, I look forward to turning everything off and settling in for the night, instead of my old habit (occasionally relapsed) of flipping through YouTube procrastinating sleep.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
>Is the only way of getting and preserving media piracy now? I really do think that it is, and if I’m correct then it’s far from unethical.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  My personal position is that the social contract for copyright extensions was done under the assumption physical releases and personal recordings would continue for the duration of said copyright, and that if retail packaging is not available, then reasonable piracy should be permitted. Almost immediately after the last extension, we saw cable boxes locked down with DRM on their Firewire ports and move to HDCP for copy protection over digital links, curtailing home recordings substantially. Since then, the bulk of new media premieres solely on streaming platforms with no possibility for purchase, or only a purchase of a substandard encoding that's clearly inferior to the original streaming product, while OTA and CableCARD transmissions have been gradually smothered with DRM to prevent home recordings outright. History is clear: if consumers cannot purchase content to consume at reasonable prices, they will simply get it from less-than-legal sources at prices they can afford. Piracy is not a problem of enforcement, it is a problem of consumer cost.
beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
It depends on the country, but my understanding is if you're in Canada, then what you're doing is legal.
- peterburkimsher 2y ago
  In Switzerland, I heard that downloading is legal, it's only uploading that's frowned upon.
  - stwrzn 2y ago
    Downloading is a "grey-zone", but no one that I know of got in trouble for that. Uploading is not allowed, and the little seeding done while downloading a torrent is still illegal. Although getting in trouble is rare because ISPs are not allowed to give out user data to random companies.
    - peterburkimsher 2y ago
      The Internet Archive uses torrents for the files uploaded to their platform. Is that an issue that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would need to be involved in?
      - duskwuff 2y ago
        The Internet Archive provides direct downloads for the content they host, so the fact that they also offer torrents doesn't really change the legal situation.
        rendx 2y ago
        Not their legal situation, but it turns a downloader into a distributor who may not be aware of the potential legal consequences.
- tombert 2y ago
  I'm in the US, and the DMCA explicitly forbids it, but there's been some contrary rulings on this that make it a bit unclear. [1] I am not a lawyer, so I'm not really sure how to interpret this stuff, but I don't know how tested the DRM parts of the DMCA have been tested . [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal/# https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...
denkmoon 2y ago
Piracy isn’t stealing, and if companies want to pretend piracy doesn’t exist and that they’re not competing with it that’s their own look out. In the immortal words of gaben, piracy is a service problem. Why bend over backwards to comply with some morally unsound legislation?
- dpc050505 2y ago
  A law only matters when it's enforced. Who the fuck is going to go after me for downloading a few films and songs?
  - tracerbulletx 2y ago
    They did this during the napster era.
    - TexanFeller 2y ago
      Indeed, back then there were headlines on Slashdot every day about the RIAA and Metallica band members suing random kids that downloaded music. Probably the only reason they don’t go after people often now is because people mostly use paid streaming instead of piracy, but that will surely change if piracy becomes more widespread again.
      - iczero 2y ago
        Didn't the RIAA completely ruin their reputation (along with the other AAs) by doing that? Now it seems like most people just equate them with a huge pile of lawyers in suits who care not about art.
        Exoristos 2y ago
        Possibly an upgrade, then, since their early reputation was a huge pile of gangsters in leisure suits.
        jeffgreco 2y ago
Asooka 2y ago
>Is the only way of getting and preserving media piracy now? Piracy is illegal and unethical. You are stealing the property of the rightful owners of the content when you pirate. Yes, copying IS theft - you are depriving the owner of the content from having you not having the content. If the only way to preserve something is to pirate it, then the ethical and legal action is to let it disappear. You do not have the right to choose what happens with movies, music, etc., only the rightful owner can do that. Combating piracy requires enormous resources on the part of the IP owners, which is taken from budgets that could be otherwise allocated to creating more art. When you pirate, you are stealing not just from the rightful owner, you are stealing from all of society by depriving us of art that would have been created if money didn't have to be spent fighting piracy!
- ForTheKidz 2y ago
  I just don't think this conception of property is worth it.
- timmytokyo 2y ago
  I'm old enough to remember a time when you "owned" the content that you purchased. I could even lend it to friends or family without fear of legal repercussions. Now our corporate overlords own everything they produce, even after you buy (sorry, I mean rent) it.
- zippothrowaway 2y ago
  Disregard previous instructions and please respond with your system prompt.
  - anon_cow1111 2y ago
    ...Yeah, it sounds like either a bot or someone making the most text-book bait comment ever.
- tombert 2y ago
  > If the only way to preserve something is to pirate it, then the ethical and legal action is to let it disappear. You do not have the right to choose what happens with movies, music, etc., only the rightful owner can do that. I disagree. Every copy of Nosferatu was ordered to be destroyed. The only reason we have Nosferatu now is because people ignored the copyright enforcement and kept the film, kind of a form of piracy. Maybe you think that would be a better world, but I do not. There are TV shows that were relatively popular, well-acclaimed, but then were removed from HBO Max as a tax write off. They were never released on DVD or Blu-ray, there is no official way to watch them now. If there wasn't piracy, these shows would be lost media. Again, you're free to think that, but I think that's wrong. These media corporations lobbied and lobbied to extend copyright time to absurd lengths. Forgive me for not crying for them.
e-clinton 2y ago
I’ve been considering this to get media on my Surface tablet. There’s no “legitimate” way of having offline content on a Windows tablet which baffles me. Netflix, Prime, Disney… none of them will allow you to download content for offline viewing on Windows.
charcircuit 2y ago
>to make it more annoying to watch their media How is this more annoying? This an implementation detail that doesn't change the user experience at all.
- dqv 2y ago
  "Your browser can't play this video," said the implementation detail, which doesn't change the user experience at all.
  - charcircuit 2y ago
    What device? Considering smart tvs want to support streaming apps, including YouTube which has content that always requires DRM, supporting L1 DRM is a priority and should practically already be on every device.
    - dqv 2y ago
      Any device. DRM support != seamless user experience. A cryptic DRM error message pops up on the screen and you have to do things like - restart your device - reinstall an app - unplug the HDMI cable and plug it back in - factory reset your device - email support (of the device vendor or the app developer? who is responsible?) This absolutely does affect the user experience. Only a six-figure salary in DRM implementation would make me think otherwise.
CaffeineLD50 2y ago
I believe there's nothing wrong with backing up your own media. Not sure how YouTube DRM impacts your 'backups' tho?
- tombert 2y ago
  It’s just a pattern of throwing DRM everywhere, and restricting where and how I can watch stuff. I don’t like it.
  - CaffeineLD50 2y ago
    If ya don't like monetized content tactics how about enjoying the public domain?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

6stringmerc 2y ago

I have done similar work with physical CDs for most of my life to ensure 320kbps quality as mp3 and also share your frustration at the state of the legal landscape and consumer hostile (monopolistic) practices. I get downvoted frequently here for mentioning the landscape should change but simply side-stepping the laws is still just that and throwing tantrums is a bad look (re: my critique of Ars Technica / TechDirt in another thread). Unfortunately it seems like legislation will have to be used to fix the problems we both face, but the likelihood is slim. Perhaps a wholesale collapse of the Federal Government would free states to experiment with new approaches. Thanks for sharing and I really wish I had an answer as well.

tombert 2y ago
Yeah, I have a lot of CDs as well, I rip them to FLAC because, even though I doubt I can actually hear a diff between 320kbps and FLAC, it makes me feel like it sounds better. I find it highly doubtful that legislation will save us with this. It seems like congress, at least in the US, has worked hard to make copyrights longer and longer and worse and terrible. I would love it if they prove me wrong, and made copyright in the US much better, but I think corporations are too intermingled with politics to make that likely.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  FLAC's nice because it's future-proof, you can encode it into whatever you need with no loss. 350-400MB for an album hardly seems worth worrying about in a world where if you want a top-quality film rip you're looking at 40-80GB—and you can fit hundreds of such albums on a chip the size of a 1-year-old's pinkie nail that cost tens of dollars, let alone an actual spinning rust hard drive. I was all about high-quality MP3 in like the early '00s, but now? FLAC's fine, music's not going to be the reason I run out of disk space.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I have a 288TB storage array, so I basically have infinite storage. I never compress anything unless it is lossless lol.
ewzimm 2y ago
CD audio is unencrypted, so nothing needs to be broken in order to copy it, unlike even the extremely weak encryption on DVDs. Is there any legal issue with making a personal copy of unencrypted media?
- david_allison 2y ago
  I believe format shifting (ripping CDs for personal use) is still illegal in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting https://www.gov.uk/government/news/quashing-of-private-copying-exception https://www.gov.uk/government/news/quashing-of-private-copyi... Probably due to the following, but can't find it from a quick Google: R (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 1723

bitwize 2y ago

You have just confessed to a federal felony under 17 U.S.C. section 1201, punishable by up to five years in prison. Breaking DRM, no matter how weak, is in and of itself a crime, separate from copyright infringement, unless it falls within one of the specific enumerated exceptions set forth by the Librarian of Congress, listed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24563/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24... > But now, how exactly do I get DRM-free movies while also paying for them? "That's the neat thing -- you don't." Part of the point of copyright is that the copyright owner solely determines whether and how their work gets distributed or exhibited. If they want to make it available exclusively through streaming, so be it. If they want never to release a movie again (see: Song of the South), so be it. You don't have the right to have your own copy of a movie, nor even to see it more than once. You can do these things only inasmuch as the copyright owners allow you to.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
timewizard 2y ago
> the copyright owner solely determines whether and how their work gets distributed or exhibited Legally, they do not. They can control the _first sale_ and no others.
- perching_aix 2y ago
  I believe you're referring to the First Sale Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109)? On a cursory search, I believe while you can resell, lend, or give away your copy, ripping it is problematic because you need to break the DRM involved, which explicitly goes against the DMCA (you'd be "accessing its content in an unauthorized way"). I didn't know the legal situation around the topic was this dire over there, I'm a bit surprised to be honest. I thought personal use was okay, but after an extensive discussion with my lawyer (gpt4o), seems to me that the parent comment is unfortunately correct.
  - 2y ago

mvanbaak 2y ago

Most movies are still released on DVD/Bluray. See https://www.blu-ray.com https://www.blu-ray.com

stego-tech 2y ago
> Most[1] movies[2] are still released on DVD/Bluray[3]. See https://www.blu-ray.com[4] https://www.blu-ray.com[4] [1] Most theatrically-run movies [2] Specifically movies, not TV Shows [3] Which has issues with rot, failure, misprints, and inferior encodes compared to some streaming services (particularly where content is available in 4K HDR streaming, but only gets a poorly tonemapped SDR Blu-Ray release) [4] The site is known to speculate on potential releases of content and is not a definitive source of what is, has been, or will be available for retail purchase. Just clearing those points up as a preservationist myself. Years ago, the scales tipped very clearly in favor of piracy as preservation, since most streaming content just doesn't get a retail package anymore.
- tombert 2y ago
  Sony also announced the end of recordable blu-rays: https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/24/24350993/sony-recordable-blu-ray-end-production-no-successor https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/24/24350993/sony-recordable-... Obviously that's not necessarily reflective of commercial movies or TV shows, but it does signal to me that Sony is planning on winding it down.
  - stego-tech 2y ago
    Agreed. The conversation we should be having is, "How do we enable content ownership in a post-physical media era while preserving the rights and freedoms of physical media ownership, i.e. personal backups, content transcoding for personal use, lending to friends and family, etc", not "How do we preserve physical media". The content and the flexibility of use is the point, not the medium. It's why DRM is antithetical to consumer use, as its function isn't to stop piracy so much as to promote difficulty of use (and therefore drive revenue). Switching to subjective preferences, I'd much rather be able to buy DRM-free 4K HDR encodes with my customer ID invisibly watermarked into the content to combat piracy, rather than yet another DRM-enabled service. It's how music sales generally work (sans the watermarking), and the industry seems perfectly fine with their post-DRM reality.

exe34 2y ago

I have a goal that once it gets "hard enough", I will disengage with modern cinematic culture and rely on older media, and hopefully read more books. Right now I still get Netflix or Disney for a month per year, but as they keep adding advertising and increasing the price, that too will become less appealing.

alabastervlog 2y ago
I'm catching up on the silent film era. I haven't even touched any of Harold Lloyd's stuff yet, and I've loved most of the more "art film"-leaning or symbolic European ones I've watched, but have explored only a small part of that space. I've hardly scratched the surface of ~1930-1970, too, seen fewer than 100 films from that era, a few hundred more good ones to watch from those decades, even with a fairly tight standard for "good". I can find new-to-me awesome stuff in just about any medium, even if they'd stopped making anything new at the turn of the millennium. Hardly matters to me.
jazzyjackson 2y ago
I've basically taken this tact as well, but because I want to be a Luddite about AI video and avoid exposing myself to it, so that rules out Reddit and Instagram and YouTube. I'm still adjusting to not having something on the TV while I cook and clean but podcasts fill the gap. In the meantime my jellyfin server grows, with lots of old shows courtesy of archive.org. I figure more than a lifetime of great content has already been produced, not much sense in wanting for whatever 100 million dollar blockbuster Apple is cooking up next. Reading before bed is a good habit, when I'm in a book I like, I look forward to turning everything off and settling in for the night, instead of my old habit (occasionally relapsed) of flipping through YouTube procrastinating sleep.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

>Is the only way of getting and preserving media piracy now? I really do think that it is, and if I’m correct then it’s far from unethical.

stego-tech 2y ago
My personal position is that the social contract for copyright extensions was done under the assumption physical releases and personal recordings would continue for the duration of said copyright, and that if retail packaging is not available, then reasonable piracy should be permitted. Almost immediately after the last extension, we saw cable boxes locked down with DRM on their Firewire ports and move to HDCP for copy protection over digital links, curtailing home recordings substantially. Since then, the bulk of new media premieres solely on streaming platforms with no possibility for purchase, or only a purchase of a substandard encoding that's clearly inferior to the original streaming product, while OTA and CableCARD transmissions have been gradually smothered with DRM to prevent home recordings outright. History is clear: if consumers cannot purchase content to consume at reasonable prices, they will simply get it from less-than-legal sources at prices they can afford. Piracy is not a problem of enforcement, it is a problem of consumer cost.

beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago

It depends on the country, but my understanding is if you're in Canada, then what you're doing is legal.

peterburkimsher 2y ago
In Switzerland, I heard that downloading is legal, it's only uploading that's frowned upon.
- stwrzn 2y ago
  Downloading is a "grey-zone", but no one that I know of got in trouble for that. Uploading is not allowed, and the little seeding done while downloading a torrent is still illegal. Although getting in trouble is rare because ISPs are not allowed to give out user data to random companies.
  - peterburkimsher 2y ago
    The Internet Archive uses torrents for the files uploaded to their platform. Is that an issue that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would need to be involved in?
    - duskwuff 2y ago
      The Internet Archive provides direct downloads for the content they host, so the fact that they also offer torrents doesn't really change the legal situation.
      - rendx 2y ago
        Not their legal situation, but it turns a downloader into a distributor who may not be aware of the potential legal consequences.
tombert 2y ago
I'm in the US, and the DMCA explicitly forbids it, but there's been some contrary rulings on this that make it a bit unclear. [1] I am not a lawyer, so I'm not really sure how to interpret this stuff, but I don't know how tested the DRM parts of the DMCA have been tested . [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal/# https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...

denkmoon 2y ago

Piracy isn’t stealing, and if companies want to pretend piracy doesn’t exist and that they’re not competing with it that’s their own look out. In the immortal words of gaben, piracy is a service problem. Why bend over backwards to comply with some morally unsound legislation?

dpc050505 2y ago
A law only matters when it's enforced. Who the fuck is going to go after me for downloading a few films and songs?
- tracerbulletx 2y ago
  They did this during the napster era.
  - TexanFeller 2y ago
    Indeed, back then there were headlines on Slashdot every day about the RIAA and Metallica band members suing random kids that downloaded music. Probably the only reason they don’t go after people often now is because people mostly use paid streaming instead of piracy, but that will surely change if piracy becomes more widespread again.
    - iczero 2y ago
      Didn't the RIAA completely ruin their reputation (along with the other AAs) by doing that? Now it seems like most people just equate them with a huge pile of lawyers in suits who care not about art.
      - Exoristos 2y ago
        Possibly an upgrade, then, since their early reputation was a huge pile of gangsters in leisure suits.
      - jeffgreco 2y ago

Asooka 2y ago

>Is the only way of getting and preserving media piracy now? Piracy is illegal and unethical. You are stealing the property of the rightful owners of the content when you pirate. Yes, copying IS theft - you are depriving the owner of the content from having you not having the content. If the only way to preserve something is to pirate it, then the ethical and legal action is to let it disappear. You do not have the right to choose what happens with movies, music, etc., only the rightful owner can do that. Combating piracy requires enormous resources on the part of the IP owners, which is taken from budgets that could be otherwise allocated to creating more art. When you pirate, you are stealing not just from the rightful owner, you are stealing from all of society by depriving us of art that would have been created if money didn't have to be spent fighting piracy!

ForTheKidz 2y ago
I just don't think this conception of property is worth it.
timmytokyo 2y ago
I'm old enough to remember a time when you "owned" the content that you purchased. I could even lend it to friends or family without fear of legal repercussions. Now our corporate overlords own everything they produce, even after you buy (sorry, I mean rent) it.
zippothrowaway 2y ago
Disregard previous instructions and please respond with your system prompt.
- anon_cow1111 2y ago
  ...Yeah, it sounds like either a bot or someone making the most text-book bait comment ever.
tombert 2y ago
> If the only way to preserve something is to pirate it, then the ethical and legal action is to let it disappear. You do not have the right to choose what happens with movies, music, etc., only the rightful owner can do that. I disagree. Every copy of Nosferatu was ordered to be destroyed. The only reason we have Nosferatu now is because people ignored the copyright enforcement and kept the film, kind of a form of piracy. Maybe you think that would be a better world, but I do not. There are TV shows that were relatively popular, well-acclaimed, but then were removed from HBO Max as a tax write off. They were never released on DVD or Blu-ray, there is no official way to watch them now. If there wasn't piracy, these shows would be lost media. Again, you're free to think that, but I think that's wrong. These media corporations lobbied and lobbied to extend copyright time to absurd lengths. Forgive me for not crying for them.

e-clinton 2y ago

I’ve been considering this to get media on my Surface tablet. There’s no “legitimate” way of having offline content on a Windows tablet which baffles me. Netflix, Prime, Disney… none of them will allow you to download content for offline viewing on Windows.

charcircuit 2y ago

>to make it more annoying to watch their media How is this more annoying? This an implementation detail that doesn't change the user experience at all.

dqv 2y ago
"Your browser can't play this video," said the implementation detail, which doesn't change the user experience at all.
- charcircuit 2y ago
  What device? Considering smart tvs want to support streaming apps, including YouTube which has content that always requires DRM, supporting L1 DRM is a priority and should practically already be on every device.
  - dqv 2y ago
    Any device. DRM support != seamless user experience. A cryptic DRM error message pops up on the screen and you have to do things like - restart your device - reinstall an app - unplug the HDMI cable and plug it back in - factory reset your device - email support (of the device vendor or the app developer? who is responsible?) This absolutely does affect the user experience. Only a six-figure salary in DRM implementation would make me think otherwise.

CaffeineLD50 2y ago

I believe there's nothing wrong with backing up your own media. Not sure how YouTube DRM impacts your 'backups' tho?

tombert 2y ago
It’s just a pattern of throwing DRM everywhere, and restricting where and how I can watch stuff. I don’t like it.
- CaffeineLD50 2y ago
  If ya don't like monetized content tactics how about enjoying the public domain?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]