• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Buying a CD/DVD was never ownership of the media that’s on it. It’s ownership of a piece of plastic and a license to play to the content on the plastic within certain limitations. If it was ownership, you would be allowed to project the DVD on a wall and charge patrons to view it, but legally you can’t, because you don’t own anything but the plastic. Buying a CD/DVD was always just a more convenient version of buying a ticket to a concert/theater to see the same thing. You’re paying for the experience of viewing their artwork.

      So, as long as you also agree that sneaking into a concert/theater to view a show without paying also isn’t theft in any way, then I can’t argue.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Blah blah blah. Shove that copyright-maximalist take. You own things, god dammit. Even if you only own your copy of a book, it’s not somehow an ink-and-paper license to a copy, it is your copy. That’s what ownership means.

        If you don’t know the difference between individual property and intellectual property, stop spitting at people who do.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just want to highlight how unnecessarily antagonistic your response was. Not sure if that was your intention, but I don’t care to engage with it. Cheers.

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you think I’ve been antagonistic, please let me know how. I’m here to have a productive discussion, but so far I’m here by myself.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You could start by actually making an attempt at good faith discussion, instead of pedantic attempts to hide from the point.

                But we both know you dont want to do that, because youre not actually here for productive discussion.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I respectfully disagreed with the top level post, and stated facts about why. If that was interpreted as not in good faith, I’m sorry, and I’m open to any counter arguments. So far, two people have pointed out that physical media can’t remotely have their licenses revoked, and I agree, that is relevant to the discussion. If you have anything relevant you’d like to contribute, I’m all ears.

        • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think his point in this case is you own the physical item but not the information on it. If not then I could buy some musician’s cd then I could say “Now I own their music” and start selling copies of their cd, publishing it, stealing their rights to it, etc. I think we can all agree that would be bad.

          • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, you own the information on it. You don’t own the rights to distribute it to others, but you bought the information and the right to personally use it. When you buy a painting, do you only have a licence to view it?

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When you buy a painting, do you only have a license to view it?

              That’s a good question. My guess is that the rights to create prints of the painting usually remain with the artist. You own that painting, you probably even own the right to display it for an entry fee, but unless the artist has granted you a license to the artwork, I don’t think you can freely create copies.

              • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Indeed, the right to make copies are often licenced (although you can also sell that right) because it is explicitly written in some conventions (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention?useskin=vector) that the copyright resides with the creator to begin with. I don’t think the Berne Convention deals with the option of transferring intellectual property and the copyright to them, but I’m assuming it’s mostly defined well enough in some contract law or other.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So how many plays do I get with the media license that comes with a CD?

        Worried they’ll revoke my license on my blues traveler CD that’s been stuck in my car since '99.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep, this is a valid point. The volatility of access seems to be a convenient side effect of modern streaming technology. I agree that there needs to be regulation around this as it’s currently too easy for a company to suddenly say “we’re pulling access to the thing you paid for right now, sorrynotsorry”.

          It’s not reasonable to expect that they have to have servers available serving the content 24/7 indefinitely, but either govts need to force companies to clearly label access to digital media as some sort of “rental agreement” similarly to how renting a video on youtube or amazon works, and making it clear that the user will only be able to access the stream for a minimum of some specified amount of time, and/or they should be required to offer a download of the media for a certain amount of time.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “volatility of access” implies a lack of intent.

            This isn’t a side effect of streaming technology, they could let me download content on my NAS and burn my own discs but they don’t because their goal is profiteering and NOT serving the best content in an open technological environments.

            “Corporate enshittification and commodity fraud” is a more apt term.

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Fraud” would imply a crime. I’m always happy when some european country has a law on the book that enables people to hold a company accountable for their shitty behavior, but in the US, we have some work to do there.

              “Enshittification” is a…surface-level description of what is happening. I’m more interested in the “how we got here” and “what needs to happen to prevent it”. Because no company has “make the experience objectively shittier” on their list of new features. Blaming “enshittification” holds as much weight to me as blaming “the deep state”. It’s not a real thing, it’s just how you perceive the emergent result of a system with certain rules and incentives. The real question is, which rules and incentives should we prioritize, and how can those changes most effectively be implemented.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not blaming “enshittification”. This IS enshittification.

                I blame shareholders and greedy C level executives. You know, the ones who make these types of decisions to milk customers for the bottom line.

                Just move on if you want to debate, these are facts and I don’t have time to defend reality from your contrarian garbage.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think we agree and could learn from each other, but I agree, I don’t think that’s in the cards here. Have a good one.