this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
319 points (96.8% liked)
Gaming
19991 readers
108 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If buying isn't ownership then piracy isn't theft.
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.
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.
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.
The irony is immense.
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.
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.
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.
Blunt rejection of scolding is not where the problem started.
You're replying to everyone in this thread with half-assed insults and underhanded comments and then playing victim and complaining about how "nobody wants to discuss this in good faith".
If you think I’ve been antagonistic, please let me know how.
I think you're a passive aggressive blowhard. I don't think you're being antagonistic although I could picture you wanting to be if that makes sense.
From my perspective, it sounds like you're reading my posts with an unwarranted intention behind them. I have to assume this stems from you disagreeing with what I am saying, but to my knowledge, nothing I've said is incorrect. If you could point to something I've said that's incorrect, I'd be glad to discuss it. Also, if you could refrain from the namecalling, that would also be appreciated.
Long winded and pointless. Very consistent.
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.
'No, see, he meant exactly what you thought he meant.'
Again: I know the difference between individual property and intellectual property. I am condemning the corporate word-games that would deny one of those exists, and the the tutting of people who take that for granted. I don't need a fucking primer.
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?
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.
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.
You'd be surprised. There seem to be vanishingly few people here willing to honestly discuss the legal questions around piracy and copyright. The vast majority are just here to circle jerk about how much corporations suck, completely forgetting about the rights of artists they're defending in the anti-AI circle jerk one thread over. I honestly think they spend more time flaming anything they disagree with than actually putting any thought into the matter. The dogmatism rivals that of conservative forums.
We found the record company shill.
I‘m all for sneaking into concerts and everything else since ticketmaster is trying to wring every penny out of customers.
All those leeches can die in a hole.
Then as I said, I can't argue.
But you should keep this in mind when you go to the next thread and join the anti-AI circle jerk, pretending to defend artists for upvotes.
The record company can’t disable my physical CD from working if they choose to. That’s 99% of the point.
That's a fair distinction. Congrats, I'm finding there are very few people willing to engage in productive discussion on here.
You arent actually putting forward a productive premise, of course no one is treating it as such
If I've said something false, let me know. As far as I'm aware, what I've said is how the law works (at least in the US). I understand if you don't like those laws, but that doesn't make them not exist, nor does it make them irrelevant when someone makes a reductive statement like "if buying isn't ownership, then piracy isn't stealing". The fact is, in some cases, it is.
Nice, more bad faith misinterpreting of the point
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.