• cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    If the content is not stored locally and DRM free, then you don’t own it. Don’t pay for content that you can’t own. 🏴‍☠️

    • Guildo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Is there any platform or medium where I can buy locally stored and DRM-free software? Even if I buy a game on disc I am fucked, cause most games need updates. I can only name GOG.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        ·
        10 months ago

        Given the recent controversy, it calls into question the definition of the word ‘buy.’

        GOG is the only one that I know of too.

        • erwan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s hard to find quality games in the sea of single dev weekend projects on itch io…

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            If you see potential in one and their game is open source then consider contributing in some way (not as in money but honest feedback helps).

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Is there any platform or medium where I can buy locally stored and DRM-free software?

        Steam, but you’ll have to manually search around the forums to see which games does it and which doesn’t. It’s not exactly a well advertised feature, but integration of Steamworks copy protection is optional. Most of the games that are DRM-free on GOG are DRM-free on Steam too.

      • TAG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        10 months ago

        Humble (the company that sells Bundles) has some games listed as DRM free games in their store. Never bought individual games from them, but I have gotten DRM free games in their bundles.

        Also, fuck GOG. They are owned by CD Project Red, the piece of shit lawyers who trademarked the term cyberpunk.

        • healthetank@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          Pretty sure they bought the trademark from the company who owned it previous (for a 1980s era board game if I recall correctly). They bought it to prevent shitty 2077 clones with the same name from popping up. I haven’t heard of them actively pursuing copyright infringement against others who use cyberpunk.

          • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            2077 and its spinoffs are literally set in the boardgame universe and an updated rulebook was released at the same time as the game.

            2077 and Edgerunners are just stories set in the setting and universe from the boardgame. The Arasaka Tower Heist, Johnny Silverhand, Morgan Blackhand, all the corps, gangs, and cyberware are right from the boardgame. The story had heavy involvement from the creator of the board game as well. For fucks sake he does the voice of Maximum Mike on the in game radio.

            Did people not realize that Cyberpunk 2077 is just another Witcher situation, but this time the original author wanted to stay a part of things?

          • TAG@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            Just because they are not openly pursuing enforcement does not mean that they will not. Just the audacity to trademark a generic term widely used in media discussion makes me think that they are being represented by scumbag lawyers.

        • yamanii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          What are you even talking a out, there are plenty of games with cyberpunk in the tittle on steam.

          • TAG@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            And CD Project Red has the right to sue those publishers.

            Of course, if they do and the other side chooses to fight, they will have to explain to a judge why the trademark was granted to them despite a mountain of prior art describing games as cyberpunk.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The fuck are you talking about wrt Cyberpunk? It was already the trademarked name of the boardgame that all this new shit draws from, the boardgame that coined the fucking term in the first place.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            30
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yes, most games are better with patches. Most games do not need patches. And most games come out just fine, the big AAAs that push consoles often have a patch that is worth caring about.

            I played through the most recent yakuza game without a patch recently. Was great.

            • Guildo@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ok, if you think most games don’t need them, then I hope that you’re enjoying bugs. 10/20 years ago games were unfinished, too - but you were able to download and SAVE an update. This is nearly impossible, now.

              • echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                20
                ·
                10 months ago

                I literally gave you an example of a game I played recently, without patches and zero bugs. Please read the whole thing before leaving a comment.

                The quality of comments on lemmy has really gone downhill the past few months, it’s about reddit quality now and getting worse

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not much of a gamer lately, huh?

          Updates are always an option now, so games are no longer released in a very stable state. And by not very stable, I mean “crashes immediately with X company hardware”, “frame rate drops to 1 frame/s in certain areas”, or “quest line is bugged and incompletable”

          Day one updates generally aren’t optional… With a publisher who values polish like Nintendo? Generally they’re playable, but a bit rough. On average, they’re literally impossible to play through. It’s a real problem in modern gaming

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I bought DRM-free TV episodes from Google Play (IIRC). Everything was great until codecs got updated a couple of years later and the videos were suddenly jerky to the point of unwatchability.

      Even when I own it, there’s no guarantee I get to keep it.

    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Uh, that’s practically all software and games these days.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        In this case Sony is taking away TV shows that people purchased. They can be purchased on physical media that will be playable as long as you have the disc. The DRM on DVD and Bluray discs can be easily removed to make backups that will play on anything forever.

        As for games, everything on GOG is DRM free. They have downloads for the installers so you can keep a backup copy to install decades from now even if GOG is long gone by then.

    • lloram239@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If the content is not stored locally and DRM free, then you don’t own it.

      Have fun managing tens of TB of backups. I have given up on that quite a while ago, DRM-free is just not a practical for the amount of digital content you collect over the years. It’s a nice to have thing that comes in really handy sometimes (e.g. watching movies on unsupported device like VR headsets), but it’s not a solution for digital ownership. In some ways it’s actually worse, as you can’t practically resell DRM-free copies, as you don’t have a proof of ownership. You’ll also miss out on updates for new technologies (codecs, OS versions, etc.).

      This needs a legislative solution or some NFT-like thing that gives you a certificate like “You own this, feel free to pirate if we go out of business”(digital signed by company).

  • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sony understands only one language… MONEY. I stopped buying their products since they installed a root kit decades ago in my computer to prevent it from ripping my legally bought CDs to my computer. I had to reinstall windows to get rid of that virus. Never again! And all my electronics were Sony back then

    • Tygr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hey, just wanted to say I’m glad a few of us remember the rootkit fiasco. I still won’t buy Sony products today.

    • speaker_hat@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They do something similar on their smart TVs - it’s not possible to run Kodi with torrent streaming plugins, they block it on purpose.

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        How is it blocked? Could you work around it with a debrid service? i.e no torrent protocol

        • speaker_hat@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I didn’t further investigated it, however I remember that the Kodi remote app port worked, but the torrent streaming port (Elementum specifically) didn’t.

          While on the Xiaomi Mi Box S it worked.

    • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      A) which CD did you buy that had the Sony rootkit? B) decades ago? No. It’s only been 18 years.

  • loki_d20@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    What I love about this whole thing is that it’s not just Sony’s fault but they’re getting all the blame because WB would pull all their future content if Sony bad-mouthed them.

    • Throwaway4669332255@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sony choose to not offer refunds. Sony knew the contract when they agreed to sell the content. When something gets pulled from steam I can still download and install it.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        How much of that money is theirs to refund? A portion of that sale went to WB? Why is WB not being asked to give a refund?

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    They’ve done this to me. When it first came out,I bought the fallout 4 DLCs. I cleared my email one time and deleted all those old purchase receipts.

    One day last year, I pop in fallout 4 and go to my file, and it says that I don’t have the dlc that corresponds to this save file. I know I bought them, so I go to the psn to redownload, but it’s asking me to pay. Long story short, I call Sony, my dlc purchase vanished at some point, and since I deleted the receipt, Sony refused to give me the content or money. They say I can’t prove I owned it, even though my files say so.

    • BlueDwaggin@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Anecdotal, I had the same with EA. When Origin first launched, the two games I had in my EA account disappeared. Do amount of battling with their support got me anywhere, even though I had the retail copies and the serial keys.

      Got to the point where I gave up. Rather play games I actually wanted to play, to than Spore and The Sims 3.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        So they stole from you and experienced no repercussions. Great story. I hope that you’ve at least stopped buying other titles from them.

        • BlueDwaggin@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          I couldn’t care less about the two games, and fighting on principle seemed like too much effort at the time.

          But yes, I’ve not bought an EA game since.

  • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Kinda slightly sensationalist title but yep…

    We are having a good discussion about this in AskLemmy: https://lemmy.nz/post/3983363

    “What is the legal difference between owning digital and physical media?”

    As a side note, how are we going with instance agnostic post IDs? I can only post a link that uses my home instance, but obviously most of you won’t be on lemmy.nz and will have to do some fuckery to open that in your home instance if you want to be able to comment.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ah thanks, we’re still waiting.

        Reminds me I should check in on the merged communities process. Federation at the community level instead of/also at the instance level would be awesome.

    • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      As a side note, how are we going with instance agnostic post IDs

      Tapping it works fine on my app, redirected to the post on my instance 👌 although I believe the situation is still pretty awkward for desktop frontends, they need to put the link into the Search box to open it on their instance AFAIK

    • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      There are two proposals (https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2987), one for a syntax specific to comments which would make your link the following:

      #3983363@lemmy.nz (it might already work in some frontends, but it most likely won’t yet)

      and the second is using standard web technologies to register handlers for lemmy and then linking to posts like so (using my instance as an example):

      navigator.registerProtocolHandler("web+lemmy", "https://lemmy.escapebigtech.info/search?q=%s", "Lemmy cross-instance link handler")
      

      which would take you to the search page where your instance will show you the post on your own instance.

      I personally think the best way is something in between, or rather implementing both

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      In the US, he is still breaking the law ripping discs. It is against the DMCA to circumvent the DRM on the discs. So he is really just pirating by a different means as far as the industry is concerned.

      He is far less likely to get caught doing it that way though.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        10 months ago

        "People’s store-bought DVD collections are always copy-protected or DRM-ed. In 2006, the U.S. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which made it illegal to circumvent DRM (Digital Rights Management) protection on DVDs. This means that it’s illegal to create a software program that can bypass DVD DRM protection. Another way of saying it is, the moment you crack DRM to rip the DVD, you’ve violated the DMCA.

        However, the DMCA contains an exception for “fair use.” This means that you can legally rip a DVD for personal use, as long as you don’t violate any of the other copyright laws. What does this mean in practice? You can rip a DVD for your own personal use, but you can’t distribute the ripped file to others. You also can’t make a copy of the ripped file for someone else.

        So, in a nutshell, if you rip DVD’s and restrict the copies to your own personal use, you’re probably safe."

        https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/is-it-legal-to-rip-dvd.html

        • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          “Probably” being the operative word there. The MPAA could still sue you into third world poverty to prove a point even if you end up winning the case.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            The only reasons they would be aware of this to sue you would be if you or someone else told them. The likelihood of that is pretty much nil unless you do something that is illegal (like selling ripped media), in which case they’re more likely to just come after you for that.

  • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Reminder that the largest brands regularly and shamelessly steal from small independent artists to sell for profit, knowing that the artists don’t have the resources to do anything about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20230726050616/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/arts/design/digital-art-copyright-marvel-panini-wizards.html

    And these are the companies trying to convince you that pirating big name media for your own personal use is theft.

    • quirzle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing.

      It’s its own, separate thing.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sony is one of the vilest corporations out there.

    Fuckers literally installed rootkits on customers’ computers (across the board, you listen to a CD on your computer- bam) to police DRM.

    Check “Sony Rootkit Scandal”, they got caught and were sued… yet here we are. Again.

    • krakenx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Don’t forget: Selling the PS3 with Linux support so that they could pay taxes as if it was a PC as well as to justify the high price to consumers. Then removing Linux later through a mandatory update.

    • kftX@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Just feel like I should at least add two more things here:

      1. Storing information do their customers as plaintext data, then getting hacked and losing all that information (infamous PSN hack);

      2. Releasing a portable console that cost between 250 and 300€, promising support for it then 2 years in, give up on it, never officially tell customers, but have one of your higher execs tell the press said console is a great “accessory” for the PS4.

      This is why I don’t personally buy Sony hardware.

      • FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Vita’s failure is really weird when you consider that they had already produced a successful portable system that had years of support, the PSP.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I blame mainly their insistence on using proprietary memory cards. That stupid piece of shit was overly expensive and used nowhere else. If they went with microSD, it’d have sold better. Even pirates have to buy hardware.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I keep forgetting just how many scandals they’ve been involved with, and the serious negative influence they’ve had on how business is done with regards to digital as well as physical goods.

  • Zummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not saying this isn’t wrong, because I believe it is, but the fact is that if you digitally own anything from video games to music to movies you should understand that it can be taken from you without a moment’s notice. Is it right? Hell no! Will it continue to happen? Hell yes!

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      They should refund it though, no?

      There are services where you pay per view/limited time access. If I pay for permanent access and unlimited viewings then I should be refunded when this changes.

      If Sony can’t guarantee unlimited access they they should sell “one year”, “five year” or “whatever they can guarantee” access and charge accordingly. If they don’t refund it’s a classic bait and switch.

  • TechAnon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Shout out to Streamio + real-debrid + torrentio! 🖤🏴‍☠️

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ok then, I’m gonna start stealing Spiderman 2 and sell it to people for, like, $20, and not take it back.

  • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    One thing I’ve not seen discussed, is this actually Sony’s fault or are they not behest to the companies that hold the content rights to do this?

    I’ve not looked into it much beyond comments so I don’t have the answer myself.

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t know if it makes any sense to assign blame here to another party than Sony. As a customer who bought a license to watch these shows, that’s the company that you have an arrangement with. It seems that their licensing arrangements with Warner Brothers were limited time, and either WB isn’t inclined to renew them or is asking more than Sony is willing to cough up.

      Probably a combination of both if I had to guess. WB is seeking to maximise the value of their own HBO Max streaming platform, so they want the content to be exclusive and not license it out to others. At the same time Sony is probably not excited to keep spending cash every few years just to keep content available to customers, they’re not making any additional money from that.

      So the end result is the current situation. Obviously customers agreed to whatever terms Sony put in their EULA at the time so I’m sure it’s legally covered and whatever, but it seems pretty scummy and misleading nonetheless. Like, if they were honest on the purchase screen and said “you can pay $20 for the right to watch this season of mythbusters, but any time we like we can take it away from you again and there’s nothing you can do,” how many people would have bought that? But effectively that is what people bought, they just weren’t aware.

  • arc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    The problem here is people didn’t buy content. They’ve bought a license to view content and somewhere in the smallprint is Sony’s right to revoke the right whenever they like for whatever reason. Other services have done likewise, either withdrawing content or just failing altogether.

    So first off, as a consumer stop buying DRM’d shit because it won’t end well under any circumstances. Second, lobby for digital property to have rights akin to physical property so the right to destroy, lend, sell, or donate it is inherent to a purchase. e.g. maybe a purchase gives you a token and a signed / watermarked file in a playable format. And incentivize providers to sell digital property by taxing services that impose DRM to create a favourable price disparity.

    • snaggen@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, what you describe is called “Rent” or “Lease”. People who press a “Buy” button and buy something, expect to own it. Words have a meaning, and trying to wiggle around this with fine print should be considered fraudulent.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.

        Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

        • snaggen@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          If I give you the impression that you buy a gold bar, but in reality you get a cheap gold plated metal bar, then that is fraud. It doesn’t matter if it looks and feel the same.

          • arc@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it’ll say as much within that wall of text.

            Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.

            That may be but it’s what these services are doing and will continue to do until lawmakers enact digital property laws along the lines that I suggest.

            • Skyzyx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Copyright is literally the definition of “who has the rights to determine how copies are made.” If you were to believe most people who publish content on YouTube, you might think that copyright means authorship, but it does not.

              When you purchase a movie on Blu-ray, you don’t own the film. You own a piece of plastic which represents a license to watch the film. But you can’t turn around, make copies, and start selling those copies without violating The film studios “right to determine how copies are made.“

              The only difference between a physical Blu-ray (license) and a digital license is that digital license is revocable. It’s not fair. It isn’t just. But it’s literally part of the contract that you agreed to.

              There’s a separate discussion to be had around “fair use.” Backing up stuff that you have paid money for does fall into “fair use,“ unless third-party encryption is involved. Because it is against the law to circumvent encryption. (Unless, of course, you’re the FBI.)

              This is the only characteristic that separates ripping CDs from ripping DVDs — CDs missed the boat on encryption.

              I’m not necessarily arguing for or against anything here other than to simply explain how it currently works (in the US, at least). There’s a separate discussion to be had about perpetual versus revocable licenses after money has been exchanged. Beyond that, there’s a discussion to be about how to protect the intellectual property of the things that you spent millions of dollars creating; and how that fares with the consumers of said intellectual property.

              These latter discussions are far more nuanced than most Internet commenters are qualified to decide.

              • snaggen@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I can sell a disk to whoever I want. I can lend my disk to a friend. I can play my disk in any player I want. Heck, I’m even allowed to crack the copy right on the disk if that is needed to play it on my device. I have the right to backup my disk to a hard drive.

                Don’t pretend Buying a movie online is anything close to buying it on a physical medium. It doesn’t make you look good.

              • arc@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I never said anything about copyright giving you right to copy movies. But if I own a CD, blu-ray or a book, I physically OWN that blu-ray or book. I can stick it on a shelf, lend it to someone, give it away, burn it, sell it on e-bay. It doesn’t entitle me to duplicate it, but the media is mine, as is my right of ownership in law.

                Conversely if I buy a digital movie on Amazon (or any other provider) I’ve bought a license to it. Next time I go view it, the movie might have gone. Or maybe Amazon just shitcans the entire service (as it has before). Or maybe they just decide to ban my account for whatever reason. Or maybe they don’t like that I’ve moved to another continent. Whatever the reason I have no recourse. Nor can I sell my license, lend it, or anything else.

                That’s the problem I’m talking about. There is no reason that when I buy a movie from Amazon or another provider it has to be this way. Instead I should buy the movie, and have a copy of movie and a token that shows my ownership of it. They can watermark the mkv to bind it to the token and me and copyright holders might come after me if I unlawfully share the file. But I should be able to sell my copy if I want. I should be able to borrow a copy from a digital library. I should be able to do things equivalent to a physical copy.

        • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I would have more sympathy for that argument if the same was applied to the government regulating land and taxes. It ain’t your land or your money, you have it on lease from the government so stop bitching and render unto Caesar.

    • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I remember when Apple was obligated to replace a text on app download button from “free” to “get”, because many apps are free of price to download but make money by in-app purchaces.

      Maybe we could do something like that for streaming services.

    • calypsopub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      We really need to add textbooks into that. It’s absolutely a crime to charge hundreds of dollars for a book that cannot be resold.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        IMO textbooks, at least in schools should just be given away in electronic form. I live in Ireland where parents have to buy physical copies from a retailer and it’s just stupid duplication of effort and a waste of money.