• Octopus1348@lemy.lol
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Remember kids, if buying is owning, piracy still isn’t stealing. You can make infinite copies of digital media.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s a different argument. We went through this with VHS. If you tape a broadcast that you paid for, it is not copyright infringement. Unless, you start making several copies and distributing them. Recording a Netflix screen and keeping it neatly in your hard drive is not CI, nor stealing for that matter. The only leg they have to stand on is when people start making copies and charging for distributing it. But even that argument has always been dubious.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    10 months ago

    i really hate how they call it a ‘library’, very disingenuous if it’s all on their servers and predicated on their fucking license agreements

    what if real libraries had to throw away books because harpercollins got pissy. would anyone stand for it? (probably yes)

  • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    10 months ago

    Want me to buy your media legally? Oh please, this is tremendously easy to do for a corporation!

    • Downloadable files (you have files, right? Otherwise how are you streaming out the stuff)
    • …with open codecs (you are using an open codec right? Otherwise you have to encode your stuff like 10 times for 10 different devices each with its own idiosyncrasy)
    • …without DRM (you have clean copies right? it’d not be smart to base a business model on files you can’t open, see the above)
    • …at an aggregate price that’s lower than paying for TV cable (you can cash in only a bit, right? It’s digital media and your competition is literally over-the-air TV with extra steps, it’s not like you have the mother of pearl of cancer cures here)
    • test113@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 months ago

      In other words, media as a “service” makes more money than media as a one-point sale. Why should they sell you a one-point solution when the service model makes more money for the shareholders? I love the shareholder economy; it makes all our lives better and makes us focus on what really matters at the end of the day, which is, of course, profits for people who already have too much money. :) very cool

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

        The only way for most of these companies to constantly generate income is to offer a subscription model. As they need to increase income, they can increase subscription prices.

        Everybody (well, just the conpany) wins. Can’t you see how beneficial this is to everyone (just the company)?

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    10 months ago

    They exist to fuck over artists and the viewers as much as they can get away with.

    I just decided I’m perfectly comfortable fucking the media companies over first.

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    There is an easy fix here:

    Require mergers to refund customers impacted as part of the merger.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Refund the sale price (that’s less than its value to me), or the value I placed on it (that’s difficult to estimate)?

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        10 months ago

        Or just let people download the media they purchased before you shutter the service.

        The whole issue here is that everyone wants to sell you some service and never let you own something.

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Refunding simply the sales price means the users lose out because the $100 I paid for my library 5 years ago is worth less now due to inflation. Simply giving me back $100 now would yield a value of $80 back in 2019.

        Just give the game/music/movie file without DRM

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not only that, but they think people are dumb enough to keep paying (and sometimes they’re not wrong).

    • Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      10 months ago

      The reason they aren’t is because methods for cracking DRM like Widevine are kept extremely secret so that the exploits don’t get patched. It does mean that a lot of content is locked to whatever the scene decides is worth their time to crack and distribute, but if anyone made the methods they use public, they would stop working very quickly.

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        10 months ago

        This happened with a version of Denuvo. Someone leaked an unobfuscated cracked version of a game (I think it was Need for Speed), giving Denuvo the opportunity to study how their protection got cracked.

      • RmDebArc_5@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        What does Widevine actually do? You may not be able to download directly but you can just use OBS

        • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’ll get worse quality. Widevine doesn’t let you play 4K content on unapproved systems. It’s also way less convenient. Obviously, pirates are not affected because they can just download Star.Wars.XII.Galactic.Boogaloo.WEBRIP.4K-DarkNaruto69.mkv, it’s only an issue if you try to watch content legally for some reason.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      There absolutely needs to be a law that forces companies to make this abundantly clear and make the usage of “buy” illegal in those cases. It should be “rent” or “purchase temporary license.”

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yuuup. It’s basic consumer protection. Imagine if a car dealership were allowed to do what we let media companies get away with. You go to the dealership, sign a contract that you didn’t fully read, and then ten years later Toyota shows up to steal your car because clause 78 of section G(4) says that the manufacturer reserves the right to repossess anything they made at any time. They wouldn’t be able to finish stealing that car before a thousand hungry lawyers ate them alive. Why do we let media companies do that?

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          They wouldn’t be able to finish stealing that car before a thousand hungry lawyers ate them alive. Why do we let media companies do that?

          They would probably actually have a decent shot at getting away with it, at least at first.

          And to answer your question, it’s because the anger that companies generate by doing this shit ends up turning into piracy. Why would you try to punish a corp for doing this (likely wasting your time) when a cheap VPN and basic tech literacy gets you what you want?

          The effort ratios are way out of wack when it comes to digital products. It’s easy to get around digital bullshitery, not so much in the real world where we are all car dependant.

    • Corroded@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There should almost be a “buy a license to…” distinction like how some games are free versus free to play.

  • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This kind of shitfuckery has been going on for as long as DRM has been around and yet people still fall for the scam.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Buying it illegally is what some people do. I wish I could find the article I read, but pirate cable is definitely a thing in some places

      Stealing legally is what the cops do when they commit robbery civil asset forfeiture

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

        Every house on my street gets pirate cable. When I found out my ancient neighbor was paying for cable with her social security I was like check this out. Disconnect cable box connect TV straight into coax. Saved her a lot of money when she cancelled cable.

        Any time you move to a new house or apartment just plug the coax into a TV, you might be surprised.

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

      You can pay for illegal content and you can take something without permission, legally.