Instead of working to create a cost effective, quick method for users to buy (AND OWN, NOT LICENSE) digital movies, the MPAA is instead going to try and censor the internet. Brilliant move, idiots.
I can own an ebook or an MP3, while some services license them many of them actually just sell you the media outright. Why are movies any different?
Otherwise, I agree, if we're (for some legitimate reason) forced into licensing instead of purchasing, the license needs to be perpetual and irrevocable.
You don’t own an ebook or an MP3 either. You have a license. You still legally aren’t permitted to do whatever you want with it. (And because virtually anything you do on a computer requires copying, there is no discrete “file” for you to own like you do physical media.)
DRM is a tool that companies use to screw customers out of controlling their own libraries, but content being DRM-free doesn’t change anything about what you legally can or can’t do with it, and doesn’t turn your license into any kind of legal ownership.
That's not accurate. Go buy an MP3 from Bandcamp, you own the mp3 (it's a merchandise transaction, not a license, it's very explicit in the terms of service) -- you don't own a license to the mp3, you own the actual mp3 (same as you would own a CD). The same is true of several other mp3 stores and a handful of ebook providers, as well as when you buy ebooks directly from the author (quick example: https://melissafmiller.com/how-and-why-to-buy-ebooks-direct-from-me-and-other-authors/).
Owning the CD doesn't allow you to make derivative works as owning the CD doesn't make you the copyright holder, just like owning the mp3 doesn't actually mean you're the copyright holder, and I'm not making any argument otherwise (referring to your "legally permitted to do whatever you want" comment) -- but you absolutely can buy mp3s and ebooks and not license them.
DRM is an entirely separate issue and not relevant here as none of what I'm referring to relates to non-DRM protected licensed content.
Yes, it is. It is fundamentally not possible to own a specific copy of a file. There is no legal basis for it. It is literally always, unconditionally, a license in every possible scenario where you don’t gain actual copyright assignment. It cannot possibly be anything else.
It doesn’t matter what their page says or how they present it. They can grant you unlimited rights to copy for personal use, but literally every time you move a file to a new drive or device is a completely distinct new file. It is not the same entity.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn't furthering the discussion. I've provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I've provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.
I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it's x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I'm not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I'm not here to take someone's word without any corroborating evidence.
I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn't mean that other places don't exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I've done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it's not possible to "own" a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.
No, you posted links claiming to do something impossible.
There is no legal concept of ownership of a file. It does not exist. There is no framework that can be interpreted to enable someone to own a specific copy of a file, which again, disappears every time you move it. You own the intellectual property contained in a file, or you don’t.
The framework that does exist is a license to a file (not a specific copy. Specific copies don’t mean anything). That license can be insanely permissive. It can grant you anything from permission to change, alter, and redistribute without any permission or attribution, to “you can view this once on this specific device”, and pretty much anything in between. But it’s always a license. It’s not capable of being anything else.
Physical media is ownership of that actual physical item. The law has added an implied license granted by possession of said item that grants additional rights to back up the contents, on a very limited basis, but the only thing with ownership involved is the actual physical media.
Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being "owned". There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don't know where you're getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it's incorrect.
Read the fine print on your DVD’s/CD’s and you’ll see he’s right. The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise - but that’s just the truth man.
It’s because it’s a limited license delivered in a physical format.
U.S. Copyright law requires that all videos displayed outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school, library, auditorium, classroom or meeting room must have public performance rights. Public performance rights are a special license that is either purchased with a video or separately from the video to allow the video to be shown outside of personal home use. This statute applies to all videos currently under copyright. This includes videos you have purchased, borrowed from the library, or rented from a video store or services like Netflix.
You realize that that paper is literally calling the entire premise you’re arguing for as “unrecognized by law” and is an argument that the law needs to change, right? It doesn’t even sort of support you on the current status. It’s a giant call to action to change the law.
What you own is a license. I’m literally all cases. There is legally nothing in between copyright assignment and a license in any scenario. It does not exist, and is not capable of existing without completely rewritten copyright law.
The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise
But if you try to resell the “single copy” of digital content you supposedly own from any of the platforms with that marketing lie, every one of them will aggressively take action. And they’ll win every time.
Because you don’t and can’t own a copy of a file and don’t have the inherent rights ownership provides.
Downvotes for being correct. Everything is licensed. Only the copyright owner holds anything other than a license. There is no legal framework for it working otherwise.
It’s wild how many people are buying into “it’s not a license” marketing fluff, when actually acknowledging it as the license it necessarily has to be and explicitly granting rights would be way more in the consumer’s interest.
The fact that they’re DRM free is good. But a vague marketing statement that “you own it” without actually clearly granting rights in a license is not good. (There might be license terms somewhere on the sites he’s referring to; I didn’t check because it isn’t actually relevant to anything.)
If you owned it, you would have the legal right to use it however you like. For example, using it on your YouTube video. But you don’t, and Bandcamp is clear about that:
Bandcamp licenses it from the artist for the purpose of redistribution, but that’s it. They don’t have a license to transfer any other right than private use.
You license everything. Physical media might make it easier to keep that license perpetually, but it’s still licensed.
You're confusing ownership of media with ownership of copyright. I'm not suggesting that I can buy an mp3 and reshare it (or the same for an ebook), that's a violation of copyright. I've never suggested that buying them lets me remove DRM, re-share, etc. It's a strawman argument that you and conciselyverbose seem very attached to, but not an argument I'm making.
Ownership is not strictly limited to physical items, and I'm very curious why people think it is. There's significant outstanding case law precedent that proves that ownership can apply to digital files as well.
Subscribe to netflix, put up flyers that you are streaming all of Ozark all week for free at your house. Then tell Netflix that you’re doing it. Let me know what happens.
Try it with a blu-ray and alert the copyright holder. Try it with a CD of your favorite album and alert the record company. Again: free, at your home, your physical or digital media you “own.” See what happens.
I never said it was unethical. I said it violates the license,which it does.
Do I think it’s bullshit? Absolutely. Do not paint me as anti-consumer, anti-ownership, or even anti-piracy. I’m saying what reality is.
We don’t own shit when it comes to music and movies and that’s a serious problem. Arguing with me doesn’t change that. I am saying we need to fix this.
Stocks are digital these days. Cryptocurrency is digital. So you’re basically saying those should be licensed to people, not owned.
Ownership has nothing to do with the tangibility of the thing in the age of the Internet. And to say otherwise is missing the point of ownership in the first place.
If I outright buy a movie, whether digital or not, I should own it – be able to download it, play it whenever I want, in perpetuity. If I subscribe to a service such as Disney+, then I fully know that I am purchasing a license to view their content.
The logistics of providing such ownership is the cost of doing business, just like it is for Blu-ray. I would argue that ownership should be even easier, logistically, for digital goods because there is no actual manufacturing effort involved (aside from initial production of, say, a movie).
The only reason companies want to license digital goods, instead of providing ownership to those who buy it, is greed (edit: and control).
You chose funny examples because a lot of people basically own a “license“ of those things and don’t even know it. Especially if they’re using a crypto exchange. They don’t own shit
If you buy on an exchange and don’t transfer to your wallet no you do not own it. Until it’s in your wallet, it’s theirs. They will transfer it to you when you call for it. THEN it’s yours.
DVDs are almost good, they still have encryption but its so shit you can just brute force it and it cripples. And somehow that’s legal, but decss or whatever it was wasnt. Gotta love IP
If I have the files on my own hard drive with no DRM or control on when or how I can play the game, how can you say I don’t own it? What would be the difference between “licensing” and “owning”?
I can see where you’re coming from - if I sell or give away my copy of the game (like literally I delete my copy and send another copy to someone else), I suppose that isn’t really seen like that from a law perspective? I guess because there’s almost no way to verify that I deleted my copy. I still feel like we should be able to own stuff like that.
I don’t think even possessing a physical CD or DVD counts as “owning” per our legal system. No? Even that is considered leasing the right to play the thing at will, but you still don’t own anything.
And they never ever ever will be. Its a condition of capitalism; give a man a fish, you’ve just fucked yourself out of one days fish sales. teach a man to fish and youve blown a customer for life, irrevocably shrinking your market share.
These are the people that sued a kid who broke DVD “drm” so he could play LEGAL movies he OWNED on a Linux machine since there was still licensing issues (i think that’s the reason?) and no player. An be he didn’t even live in the US.
They’re spoiled from selling you the same movies over and over again whenever a new medium becomes normalized, despite all your previous licenses. Then they complain when your media breaks or you want to share with your best friend.
Curious, I checked out Chris Dodd and wonder what he's up to. He's a close advisor now to Biden so I'd imagine he's whispering in Biden's ear and whoever will listen, about how much of piracy is 'bad for ya'. In case anyone forgot, Chris Dodd was a major asshole during his 6 year stint (2011 - 2017) with MPAA and he ultimately failed in stopping piracy.
I don't think this latest tactic will work. Congress couldn't even understand Facebook and they couldn't even hold Mark Zuckerberg of all people, accountable for his shit. Congress, MPAA and all the forces in the world couldn't stop Kim Dotcom. MPAA, ACE and whatever, still cannot shut down The Pirate Bay.
They'll just keep bashing their heads on the brick wall. The only victories they've gotten in all of the 20+ year decade war on piracy, is that most times, the sites go down because of lack of funding and support. They only take down big sites because they've found weak links or they've found those run-a-mouth pirates who've gotta go around talking shit about pirating to the point where they're a liability then wonder why their favorite service/site is shut down.
It may not be next President/Congress or the one after that. However there will be a President/Congress that decides to broaden the firewall to “protect us”.
This post explaining why the Motion Picture Association and Congress will work together to start blocking piracy sites in the US had no business being in a thread about how the Motion Picture Association and Congress will work together to start blocking piracy sites.
Pathetic, deleting comments critical of your moderation.
I can’t think of something more on-topic in a thread about American industry lobbying than a study by Princeton, published in a reputable journal, specifically on the topic of lobbying of the American government by industry.
They may not know how it works, which is why it’s fucking dangerous that they are getting “consulted” by the MPA.
Best case scenario: it’s just a DNS level block.
Worst case scenario: it’s a DNS level log capture so that the MPA can sue people who watch things on fmovies or similar sites, like the RIAA did in the 90s.
You can even bypass these blocks with a CDN like Cloudflare. They let you host a proxy for a website for free. Check out this guide champagne.pages.dev/…/proxy-websites/
That’s an unregulated market. It’s a bit counterintuitive, but an idealized free market would need to be free of price fixing and monopolization, and therefore requires regulation.
That’s what all these invisible hand folk always get wrong.
I agree 😇 free market leads to one big monopoly which decides anything for anyone. Regulation is needed all the time, as we saw (and see) with Microsoft and now with Apple, Amazon, Google etc.
Unregulated market ≠ free market. That’s what I just explained. If you’d like a better understanding I’d highly recommend auditing econ 101 online through MIT: youtu.be/_OkTw766oCs?si=twyynoEzf-bi5k3m
It’s not a tough course, and it’s probably one that everybody should take anyways, TBH.
Its good to see congress focusing on the real issues finally. When I pay taxes, this is what I’m looking for. Hopefully they will get around to legalizing kicking homeless people and children in the face soon as this is another one of my priorities.
As a disabled person I find I am not intentionally tripped anywhere near enough. I beseech Congress to act now before I become complacent in my verticality.
You don’t have to ban VPNs. Just force everyone doing business in the US to keep logs and to comply with blocking websites via federal law (that will be dictated by the MPAA)
I mean, that’s not out of the realm of possibility of things going down that way, but good luck getting that passed and then enforcing that, especially internationally.
Also, I have to wonder if there’s an argument to be made about undue burden. But NAL, so dunno.
Just use a foreign VPN (basically all trustworthy, privacy-focused VPN providers are located outside the US, e.g. Mullvad in Sweden, IVPN in Gibraltar or Proton VPN in Switzerland) and connect to an exit server outside the US
the growth has already been staggering since states starting requiring ID’s for pornhub. I’m glad tech literacy is increasing in the face of these recurring laws. Small silver lining I can latch on to lol
It’s almost like John Oliver’s NSA street campaign. No one cared until he started talking about how the NSA was cause inappropriately “handling” dick pics
They’re half the way there. One does not simply turn off the porn. People will go through great lengths to see nudes
Now we just have to make them understand that their porn history is being collected along with their legal identity. Hackers will get it before long, and if the government doesn’t have it already, it’s just a matter of time
The violation we’ve felt having all of our movements and habits tracked is apparently only felt by the masses when their junk is analyzed. Which I find weird, but hey, whatever makes people realize privacy isn’t something to shrug off
And if you were to watch it at 60Hz you would need 82+ years to watch that one second. Hope you know exactly where you’re wanting to look or can scrub it really fast!
After seeing the one where they slam Dan’s face with a ball and you see his skull moving under his skin I realized there can be entire fields of study around insanely fast cameras. What we see in real time doesn’t even compare. Also the one where Gav shows how CRTs work is still my favorite.
engadget.com
Hot