• dub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is this for movies? Because you can always just buy the DVD lol. Then you would own it

      • RCMaehl [Any]@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s the fact you don’t own a digital game. You are only licensed. This applies to steam games too.

        • dub@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah i see. Good point then. Shame we won’t have the same kind of retro gaming scene as we do now in the future

      • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you don’t own the movie. You own the 2 cent piece of plastic it’s on but the movie itself is licensed, not owned. The piece of plastic is basically your license key, nothing more.

      • axtualdave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even then, your rights are limited. You can’t show it publicly, or make a copy except for personal backup, for instance.

          • Metallibus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I used to think this was unlikely to happen, and didn’t like how fragmented streaming services were… And I don’t watch enough TVs/movies to justify one or more subscription services.

            So I’d just buy everything on YouTube. Figured I’d only buy it once so I paid extra for the 1080p. Then they decided to stop supporting anything over 480p on browsers that aren’t Safari. Watching 480p movies is a joke.

            Apparently you’re only allowed 720p/1080p on phones/tablets (lol at watching a movie that small), smart TVs (why would I own a TV with this little TV consumption) or Safari (lol Macs).

            I don’t even know what to do at this point. Go back to collecting DVDs? Think I’m just done watching movies.

      • maeries@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. Some things are streaming exclusive. Like Stranger Things and Glass Onion

    • aname@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not owning it is similar to paying to go to theater or cinema and you don’t own the thing either. I don’t see people complaining that they cannot take video in theaters.

    • MostlyHarmless@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it stealing if you don’t pay for the cinema? You don’t own anything new after.

      Is it stealing if you don’t pay for your haircut? You don’t own anything new after.

      Is it stealing if you don’t pay for your car service? You don’t own anything new after.

      • A7thStone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have a new experience after the cinema, you have a new style after a haircut, and the car service argument is so stupid I refuse to even entertain it.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        In those three cases, you’re receiving a service (showing you the movie, cutting your hair and servicing your car), so yeah, you’re stealing their work, which is arguably much worse than stealing objects.

        In contrast, copying a copy of a movie or a game or whatever without removing the original or even a copy of it is not stealing.

        And before you chime in with “but future income!”, those profits are hypothetical, so even in the most uncharitable rational definition, you have stolen something that someone MIGHT have gotten.

        Copying is not theft and you can’t steal something that doesn’t and might never exist.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No. The work that went into making the movie has already been paid for. The vast majority if not all of the profits from selling and renting the movie goes to the billionaire movie studios.

            At the cinema, there’s a projectionist showing you the movie and maintenance crew making sure you can do so in a pleasant environment, people working the concession stand etc.

            Those are services. Owning the “rights” to something that someone else made isn’t.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nope. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never tried to pay for goods or services with a pirated copy of Shrek 2, much less one I was trying to pass off as the “real deal”.

        • fuck reddit@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The gray area where I live is that streaming is not piracy. I didn’t pay for it, but I also didn’t retain a copy.

          Putlocker and Wootly were my go-to spots in college because I wouldn’t get a piracy warning from my internet provider.

          If there are better places these days, please let me know. I miss seeing new movies the same day they hit the digital marketplace

          • dingus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah once internet speeds got good enough, I stopped pirating movies and shows and started just watching them on streaming sites. The quality is usually slightly worse, but not enough for me to care that much. Stops your ISP from threatening you about piracy and makes it so you don’t have to fill up your hard drive space.

            Putlocker was my go to years back as well. But in recent years I’ve been using movies7 dot to. I don’t know if Putlocker has changed at all, but I remember long ago it was a bit difficult to search for the content you wanted. More modern dedicated streaming sites like the one I mentioned are much easier to search.

            There was another site that I had run into a recommendation for recently that might be better than the one I mentioned…but unfortunately I can’t remember what that one is.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This needs to clarify digital piracy (even though the term already implies that) so people stop comparing renting physical things and spaces to it.

        • fuck reddit@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. If I bought a movie on Amazon, and Amazon stops existing, do I receive a physical copy/the ability to download my media? I paid for it.

          • Sekki@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think we have to rephrase the meme here. If I BOUGHT a game on steam I do not own it even though I basically bought my own copy. I dont think rental or paying for a service is the same. They should just not disguise paying for a service as buying a product.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Make a copy of a car, meaning nothing has been taken away from anyone else? Me too, absolutely!

            • 2bR02b@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If creating legitimate copies is how someone makes money, you creating a bootleg copy deprives them of revenue and is thus stealing.

      • SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, Captain obvious thanks for pointing out that a service and a product are different things. After all why would I pirate porn when fucking a hooker doesn’t get me anything new after?

      • Joe_0237@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is that in your later two examples, a business lost something, their time / labor. If you took someones seat at the theater, there will be a disruption at the least, maybe the customer does not get their seat or you have to be kicked out or cleaned up after, but if you don’t disrupt anything or make a mess, you caused no harm whatsoever.

        No one looses anything when someone copies a file without permission. The FBI and other propaganda sources would have you believe that media companies would make more money if you didn’t copy the file, there is no evidence of that, only evidence to the contrary, even so, if it were true, taking an action that causes someone to earn less money than if the action were not taken is not theft. If I open up a store, next to your store, and sell the kind of products you sell, you will make less money than if i don’t, but no person with any self respect would ever claim that I stole anything from you, except you, the angry store owner. The reality is that these laws and their associated propaganda exist because the wealthy ruling class is terrified of making slightly less money for their investors.

        Think back to the moment you learned that copying was considered theft, you knew it was ridiculous at the time, but you’ve seen so many FBI warnings, and so much of your favorite youtubers whining about facebook videos that belong to them with more views than theirs, steeling their precious views, even though almost no one on earth watches videos on facebook and on youtube, and no one who knows and wants to support a creator would ever watch their content in a way that would instead support someone else who provided no new value. The reality is that the youtuber was never going to get any views from the audience of the facebook video if the facebook video didn’t exist, but because it did, many people followed the comment saying that the video was stolen right back to the original creator. Likewise the people who are pirating software or media are probably not going to buy it in any timeline, but now that they copied the content, they might promote it to people who will actually buy it, people who otherwise would not know about it.

        • Methylman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Think back to the moment you learned that copying was considered theft

          Well copying is very broad… Plagiarism’s treatment as being both technically and morally wrong imo always makes sense. Plagiarism goes beyond copyright infringement though, since infringement only requires “use” of the material whereas plagiarism is passing it off as your own.

          • Joe_0237@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree. Though palgerism as an institutuonal rule is a lot stronder than it is in real life. If i write a paper for you and tell you that you can use your name on it instead of mine, maybe because you payed me to. I belive the law is totaly fine with that, but your readers may not like it, and your school may go as far as kicking you out.

  • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I appreciate the sentiment, theft of service is a crime. You don’t have to be able to own something to be able to steal it.

    • Thteven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guess they better lock me up then.

      Wait, uh oh, is that the sound of sirens? Are they finally coming for me? Nope, it’s just the cops seizing someone’s civil assets at a traffic stop. Another day on the high seas for me.

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does a lack of enforcement, or other bullshit that the government does, have to do with the fact that OPs post made no sense.

        • Thteven@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It made sense to me. Try unburdening yourself from this mindset of corporate lordship.

          • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not in that mindset. Doesn’t mean laws and definitions of words don’t exist law. We can say fuck them and that we don’t care, but they still exist.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Theft of service is stuff like getting a haircut and leaving without paying. No, it’s not evil that there are laws against doing that.

        Calling software a service is quite a stretch, though.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When evil hides behind legality, there’s no moral imperative for good people to follow laws.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly! So many authoritarians pretend that every law is sacrosanct to the same degree as the ones against murder and meanwhile we have motherfuckers outlawing water breaks in triple digit degrees weather and mandating discrimination!

    • Hawke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do own the service though, or at least the result of it.

      I hire someone to build me a garage, I own the garage.

      • Ferris@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ma sell garages with an EULA so all you own is the shelter your garage gave before I deprecated it; How’s that.

  • jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate DRM. Especially as an open sourcer. If all methods of buying it are DRM’ed I won’t buy it. My wife has Netflix and contribute the same to OpenRightsGroup, who fight DRM, to balance out our karma. I won’t watch Netflix.

    But it’s not just media now. A lot of modern device have anti-features and lockout the user. I won’t say owner, because if it’s a computer and your not admin, your not the owner. Car are terrible for this and it rubs right up against Right To Repair. They use this power imbalance to force you to use dealerships. Crazy thing is, the cars modules are also closed black boxes to car manufacturer. I’ve been to car industry talks where automotive engineers complain of this, and everyone is nodding, but they don’t see their own closeness is no better. They want other to be open with them, but don’t want to be open with others.

    It’s a terrible state of play. In future, today will be a digital darkage and will only be the pirated and cracked stuff that makes it through. It’s so stupid, shortsighted, anticompetitive and certain amount of just evil.

  • somnuz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only thing I would (totally naively and magically) wish for is some kind of really well organized and curated time capsule mainly for movies and music preservation.

    I don’t want all the music and movies for myself, I wouldn’t be able to watch/hear it all but I wish for anyone from any time in the future — to have a simple/legal option to just dig anything out, public domain or whatever will work best.

    People have created some amazing gems.

      • somnuz@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, yes. This exist — I am really grateful for that, but… This audio library now contains 15M positions. It is a big number, no doubt about it.

        Then, Spotify has over 80M files in the library with around 4M podcasts.

        Estimated existing music amount is unclear but around 90-200M and growing all the time.

        And suddenly 15M is getting somehow small in terms of preserving, and this is with music only.

        With movies I even remember some interviews with Tarantino and Nolan talking about how badly some movies are being mistreated, lost cuts, not even close to proper/safe long time storing, fires, accidents and so on…

  • Monologue@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    internet piracy? i never ever would do such a thing, it is illegal. instead i will pay for 5 streaming services and never own anything. remember, you wouldn’t steal a car.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    One might argue that software developers deserve to be paid fairly for their work.

    That argument falls flat, though, when their products include user-hostile misfeatures like performance-ruining DRM and obnoxious in-app advertising, which pirates remove. By including such misfeatures, software companies are basically punishing their customers for not pirating their products.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why make a version without the restrictive DRM and annoying ads if you don’t agree with the mechanics of restrictive DRM and annoying ads, you say? Hmm, that’s a real puzzler 🤔