this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
1723 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

60070 readers
3675 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I've seen this quote repeated over and over these past few weeks, while noone brothers to actually explain what it means and why. This article is no different unfortunately.

[–] kurwa@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you spend money on something, let's say one of those movies from PlayStation, you don't actually own that movie, there is no file given to you that is yours. You are just given access to it. And then, out of no where, they can take that away from you.

When you pirate something, you are just creating a copy of the file, you aren't taking away the original file.

So, the argument here is that morally pirating is okay because no one is losing anything, aside from potential sales for the company I guess. But on the flip side, the company is essentially stealing from you because they took your money, and you aren't allowed access to what you bought.

The most morally just position in this case would be that if you were one of those customers who paid for and then lost access to said movies, and then you pirated them back, you could say that the company had already made their money on you, and you're owed those movies.

In my opinion, I don't think pirating from any million / billion dollar company is bad even if you didn't "own" it originally.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 1 year ago

And then, out of no where, they can take that away from you.

Which would also be less bad if they reimbursed you for it in some way. But of course they don't.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What brought this quote into the limelight most recently is Louis Rossmann's coverage of Sony pulling all Discovery channel content not just from their storefront, but also from people's libraries.

Sony essentially stole content from people's libraries that they'd already paid for, not just rented content. Sony argued against this that you only had a licence to the content, you didn't own what you bought, hence the quote's meaning...

If buying isn't owning [because it's all just a copy of their content], then piracy isn't stealing [because it's also just a copy of their content].

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 6 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Louis Rossmann's coverage

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This seems like it's very specific to that one incident. But people try to use it on all digital products.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not just Sony. All the digital library providers have done this. Apple, Amazon, and Google have all had similar instances that resolved the same way; the consumer got fucked.

Ohh yeah, Microsoft. I own Forza 7 Motorsport. It's installed on my hard drive. Microsoft killed the servers so I can't even play single player because the tracks weren't included in the game. You have to download the track every time you play single player or multiplayer.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's with the hundreds of thousands of other media that is shared?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What about them. I'm not talking about freely shared media, I'm talking about media companies repeatedly removing access to media that we paid for. It is a pattern of behavior from these "people" and if they won't stop stealing from us, then I propose we nuke their headquarters.

[–] iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ohh yeah, Microsoft. I own Forza 7 Motorsport. It's installed on my hard drive. Microsoft killed the servers so I can't even play single player because the tracks weren't included in the game. You have to download the track every time you play single player or multiplayer.

That is not the same thing. You still own the game, whether or not it is playable is not the same as not owning. Legal bs but that's how most Western societies are built.

[–] S410@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Whenever a game or program or goes unplayable you can not go and fix it, despite "owning it".
Removal of any kind of DRM, even if for personal, even in products you've bought, is illegal.

And there's no lower-limit on how "secure" DRM has to be: even if the client-server communication is not encrypted in any way, doesn't include any identifying information, and you can perfectly re-implement server-side software, tricking the program into itself into talking to your server, instead of the original, is, at best, legally grey area.

[–] iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what your point is? We're taking about ownership, not whether you can reverse engineer sine DRM.

[–] S410@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Being able to do things to your property is one of the basic concepts of, well, property.

Let's say your car's manufacturer fixed the wheels using security bolts and they're the only people who have the sockets.
With actual cars it would be, at most, annoying. You'd still be able to undo the bolts, either by buying or making a fitting socket, or just smacking a regular one until it fits.

In the digital world, however, just because it's called a "security" socket, you're forbidden, by law, from tampering with it. And if the licensed services stop servicing the model of your car one day... You're fucked. Because, even though you "own" the car, you are legally forbidden from doing basic maintenance required to use it.

[–] S410@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you "buy" digital content, be it music, movies, software or games, you almost never actually buy the product. What you get is a limited license to view or use the product for an undefined amount of time.

Generally, companies reserve the right to, at any moment, restrict how can access the content (e.g. force you to use a specific device and/or program) or remove your ability to use or view the product entirely.

For example, a movie or song you've "bought" might get removed from whatever streaming service you're using. A game or program might stop working due to changes in the DRM system.

Actual example from less than half a year ago: Autodesk disabled people's supposedly perpetual licenses for Autocad and other software, forcing anyone wishing to continue to use their software into a subscription.

Imagine buying a house, only for the seller to show up 10 later and state that they change their might and staring from this point in time the house is no longer yours - despite the fact that you've paid for it in full - and you own them rent, if you want to keep living in it.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The architectural design is Intellectual Property and you've got a time-limited license to use it.

Absolutelly, the land is yours, as are the materials the house is made from, but you'll have to pay extra for continued use of that design once your license expires.

PS: This is how I imagine the argument would be made.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Companies selling software and other digital goods tend to pull back parts of their library for all kinds of reasons, which in turn takes these goods away from paying customers who thought they bought something. Since the company defends itself by saying they never bought those goods outright, customers defend themselves by saying that if paying for it isn't buying, then not paying isn't stealing.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm interested in where I can hear this explanation from the Noone Brothers.

[–] agileharddisk@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago

watch the recent Louis Rossmann videos if the first part is what you don't understand

[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/a71_BespSCY?si=sM3DLjzLnpSZjKNL

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.