There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

RandomCookie420 ,
@RandomCookie420@eviltoast.org avatar

Because 🤡

(there is no actual reason)

jabathekek ,
@jabathekek@sopuli.xyz avatar

Ahem actually it’s because 🤑 💰 💸

PropaGandalf ,

…of the greedy industry, not the artists

falkerie71 ,
@falkerie71@sh.itjust.works avatar

Physical media doesn’t have the luxury of endlessly replicating itself via a simple copy and paste.

Deckweiss ,

Distributing data to everybody is the only communism that works.

Endless replication, creates endless intelectual and creative wealth and diminishes financial wealth to zero.

VelvetStorm ,

It won’t even diminish it to zero. Some people will still pay. Ya I could download games for free and play them but I want to support the teams that made them so they keep making them. I only get games for free if that is the only way of getting them.

Adalast ,

Since when, you can do a perfect rip of a CD and burn an exact image of the disk loslessly thousands of times. Same for DVD and Blu-rays. If you are talking about a physical book, then yes, making lossless copies is more involved, but still technically possible with the proper equipment and knowledge.

Blue_Morpho ,

If a copy isn’t kept after sale, it should be legal. It’s my understanding it is legal in the EU.

That is if you can sell a game you bought on Steam. Steam makes sure to copies aren’t played at the same time so you can’t keep your copy after selling it.

falkerie71 ,
@falkerie71@sh.itjust.works avatar

From my understanding, you don’t “own” a game you bought on Steam, you just own the license to play it. The game file without modifications is protected by DRM, and only works when it’s launched from Steam with a valid license. Notice when using the same account on two different PCs, Steam would force quit the game when you try to launch the same game from the other PC.

In a closed system like Steam, sure, it would be relatively easy to regulate the buying and selling of game licenses since you’re doing it all under Steam’s system. When Steam detects a license transfer or however they want to implement it, they can easily disable access for the seller and enable it for the buyer.

But if the game file is DRM free, then it’s the same as downloading pirated movies, there would be no guarantee that the seller has no access to the game after selling it. No way to regulate it either. Hence, endless copies.

henfredemars ,

In theory, sharing a digital file can have a much greater impact than sharing a CD physically. Plus, you lose access to your copy of the CD if you give it to someone else. You can think of it like transferring a license for one user to a different user. There is no simultaneous usage.

I don’t personally agree with this view, but I believe that’s the argument.

SinningStromgald ,

I buy disc.

I rip contents of CD to computer.

I sell disc.

mhague ,

The amount of people who will duplicate their tapes and CDs would be lower than the amount of people who will duplicate their digital files.

Most of the time when a law sounds silly for banning something when alternatives exist, it’s because people themselves are silly and don’t actually go for the alternatives at the same rate as they would the banned thing. Ie gun accessory bans, ninja star bans.

Suburbanl3g3nd ,

Where were you in the early 2000s? Lol

M500 ,

I don’t know anyone who didn’t do this.

PunnyName ,

Anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence.

M500 ,

nuh-uh

mhague ,

Burning CDs. That’s how I know most people didn’t know how to do it, or want to put in the effort. You had to go buy a stack of CDs, hope your computer supported burning, had to make sure players could support the burned disc (depending on if you made a music disc or data disc, if it was rewritable), and spend the time to burn the disc.

Contrast that to ctrl+c ctrl+v.

There’s more people who can ‘duplicate’ digital files than there were people burning CDs.

friend_of_satan ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    Rai ,

    STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM

    Adalast ,

    Eh, technically it is only criminal if he distributed it. US (and I think international) copyright laws has provisions for “personal backups” of media you have purchased. There is nothing illegal about ripping a copy of a CD to your computer or burning an image of a game disc, only if you allow the copy to leave your personal possession. It is so you can keep a copy in a fireproof safe and not lose access to your property in the event of a disaster.

    Not that you needed to be told and I get the sarcasm; I am just a habitual pedant and felt the need to utilize the opportunity for a PSA.

    pearsaltchocolatebar ,

    Netflix’s mail service was great for data hoarders.

    Windex007 ,

    DON’T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!

    This argument is only a “gotcha” if it was permissible use, but it wasn’t, even before CDs.

    Nightweb ,

    I’m back, it’s me DP

    PopShark ,

    Not very fun fact: The developer from that video got arrested for cp possession

    Rai ,

    You’re totally right, that’s not fun at all!

    HerbalGamer ,
    @HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

    You rather had them walk free? /S

    SreudianFlip ,

    I think you are referring to rules in the USA. In Canada, we have ‘fair dealing’ laws that would allow you to rip your CD and sell it. In part, this is already funded by a levy on blank CDs here.

    TootSweet , (edited )

    Of those three steps, step 2 is the illegal one. (Assuming we’re talking about music and not software.) Even if you never do step 3.

    (Not saying things should be that way. Nor that it’s not difficult to enforce. Only that as the laws are today, even ripping a music CD to your hard drive without any intention to share the audio files or resell the CD, even if you never listen to the tracks from your computer, the act of making that “copy” infringes copyright.)

    Edit: Oh, and I should mention this is the case for U.S. copyright. No idea about any other countries.

    TWeaK ,

    Technically Step 2 should be legal, as covered by the old VCR case law (I think it involved Sony). Making a backup of a VHS tape or audio casette was legal, thus it should be legal for other formats, also.

    However the sneaky bastards then went and lobbied for a law that makes it illegal to circumvent DRM. So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with writing the raw files to a drive, but if you have to crack the DRM to get the files to play then you’re definitely doing something unlawful.

    Disclaimer: “should” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment lol what I say is not in any way legal advice. Also, it could be that the VHS law was more about “time-shifting”, ie recording live TV so that you could watch it at a more convenient time.

    Copyright also used to only be a civil offense, meaning law enforcement wouldn’t come after you, but a rightsholder might. However, they lobbied over that as well and ended up with a relatively low bar - if the value is over something like $1,000 then it’s automatically considered commercial and “criminal” copyright infringement.

    TootSweet ,

    Regular audio CDs don’t have any DRM. (Unless it’s a data CD filled with audio files that have DRM or some such. But regular standard audio CDs that work in any CD player, there’s no DRM. The standard just doesn’t allow for any DRM.) And so the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions wouldn’t apply to CDs.

    But as for the Sony case you’re referencing, I’m not familiar with it, so I’ll have to do more research on that.

    TWeaK ,

    Pretty sure it was this one: en.wikipedia.org/…/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive…. Sony were actually the defendant, with their Betamax format. It does seem to focus primarily on time-shifting, ie recording live to watch later, however the reason for this was that the content was already available to the viewer and thus the copying should be permitted fair use. The Supreme Court also quoted Mr Rogers’ testimony in their ruling.

    “Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the ‘Neighborhood’ at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it’s a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that, with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the ‘Neighborhood’ off the air, and I’m speaking for the ‘Neighborhood’ because that’s what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family’s television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been ‘You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.’ Maybe I’m going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important.”

    Applying this reasoning to new technologies has since been debated back and forth through the decades with little clear resolution. Subsequent cases have sided with the rightsholders (eg against Grokster and Limewire), but the reasoning behind them was all over the place. They addressed the purpose of file sharing technology and concluded that those services existed primarily to facilitate copyright infringement, rather than addressing the matter of personal backups.

    hedgehog ,

    In the US, if you don’t proceed to step 3, step 2 is legal (so long as the CD lacks DRM). You’re permitted a single backup under fair use; you’re also permitted to rip the music for personal use, like loading it onto a music player. You’re not supposed to burn it to a regular CD-R (is it illegal? Idk), but burning it to an Audio CD-R (where there is a tax that is distributed to rights holders like royalties) is endorsed by the RIAA.

    KpntAutismus ,

    which is eyactly why piracy isn’t theft.

    it can still be a crime, just don’t call it what it obviously isn’t.

    zarkanian ,
    @zarkanian@sh.itjust.works avatar

    It isn’t piracy, either. It’s filesharing.

    See Richard Stallman, “Ending the War on Sharing”:

    When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

    TWeaK ,

    It never used to be theft. Bastard lobbyists!

    usualsuspect191 ,

    Can’t you transfer a game to other people on Steam? They treat it like a physical item where after giving it away you loose access IIRC.

    NationProtons ,

    Not if you already activated it.

    It used to be possible to buy games as gifts and and them to your inventory to give to somebody ( or activate it yourself ) later.

    Now, when you want to gift a game. You have to immediately select the person you want to send it to.

    usualsuspect191 ,

    That’s too bad… I guess I can’t think of a digital example that’s an analogue of the physical one after all

    NationProtons ,

    Maybe this should be enforced by law. At least for digital purchases which are basically a license.

    The only things you can easily give to others are DRM free things, like the games you can buy from GOG. But in that case it’s also easy to copy.

    Rai ,

    You USED to be able to stock up on games on Steam as gift games… I bought eight copies of Fallout: New Vegas for 2.5USD at one point.

    They stopped that. I understand why but fuck, I miss it. Most of those copies were traded for one buds hahaha

    princessnorah , (edited )
    @princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    There are companies out there that do allow this for digital licenses. Arturia, an audio software and hardware company, lets you de-register and sell a license key to someone else, who can re-register it. They don’t charge any fees for it at all either, like some companies do. It’s not hard, most companies just don’t care about you as a customer.

    Edit: Their license keys all include five seats too.

    MonkderZweite , (edited )

    And that’s why you don’t own digital media but only a “usage license”, because the original owner still has the original? Isn’t it then fraudulent if the shops sell you the media, despite it being only a license? And shouldn’t that be cheaper then?

    Well, anyway, harr harr.

    nooneescapesthelaw ,

    Legally speaking you don’t own the digital files, you have a license but you don’t actually own it.

    MxM111 ,

    So, why can’t I buy and sell license?

    Godort ,

    I believe there was a recent EU ruling that mandated that this must be allowed.

    I’m not sure of the details, however.

    BolexForSoup ,
    @BolexForSoup@kbin.social avatar

    Ehhh they’re technically wrong. You don’t own the media with physical formats either. There’s just nothing they can do about it if they want it out of your home.

    Oka ,

    In a way, NFTs were supposed to solve this.

    soren446 ,
    @soren446@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    fkn ,

    Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.

    soren446 ,
    @soren446@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    fkn ,

    Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn’t come up with a new idea. This isn’t some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing… Which again, isn’t a new concept either.

    Right now, everything you described… Literally all of it… Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.

    soren446 ,
    @soren446@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    fkn ,

    Sorry. I apologize.

    It’s frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again…

    The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.

    I don’t know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don’t know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.

    toiletobserver ,

    You literally can. Check out kinguin

    sushibowl ,

    Often, licence agreements stipulate that they are not transferable and thus you have contractually agreed not to resell them. To what extent this is enforceable is… contentious. Different courts have struggled with the topic and have ruled both directions on the issue.

    Copyright law as written was not designed for immaterial goods in any way, and the DMCA has done little to improve that. So effectively the judicial branch is in limbo. Corporate America is content to leave the confusion as is. They can just adopt an interpretation of the law that is maximally beneficial to them, and consumers generally don’t have the resources to challenge that interpretation.

    BolexForSoup ,
    @BolexForSoup@kbin.social avatar

    That is no different with CDs, DVDs, etc. It’s written on all of them. It’s a limited license, which is why you can’t host screenings and charge people with your physical media.

    gravitas_deficiency ,

    “Reasons”

    skullgiver , (edited )
    @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    ShortN0te ,

    Iirc there was an online ebook market in the Netherlands where you could resell your ebooks. This was deemed illegal because there is no way to guarantee the seller has deleted his own copy after it was sold.

    oo1 ,

    Crazy.
    It's not too much of a stretch to apply that to selling a CD; the vendor would have to prove that they didn't make a copy?
    Guilty before proven innocent.

    ShortN0te ,

    Tbh, i understand the argument (somewhat). The media is bound to a CD so normal use would be to just read from the CD. Digitizing it to a digital file is another step. An ebook is a digital file to begin with. You must actively break the law where you just need to forget the empty your trashbin with the digital ebook.

    There is also this huge deal with for example Windows Licenses. You are not allowed to resell Windows Licenses you no longer need, except when they are printed on (for example) a Laptop to begin with, then you can sell the device with the Licence.

    For the current law interpretation it is really important if the digital good is somewhat bound to a real object (CD or comes printed out) or if it just digital.

    AnyOldName3 ,
    @AnyOldName3@lemmy.world avatar

    The legalese in the US (which might as well be everywhere as you need to have compatible copyright with the US to have a trade deal with the US, and your country is in trouble if it doesn’t have a trade deal with the US) is basically that:

    • If you buy a physical copy, you’ve become the owner of that one copy of the IP contained within. As the owner of that copy, you can do stuff with it like read it, display it, destroy it, or sell it on to someone else thanks to the First Sale Doctrine (but you can’t do other things like copying it, unless it’s a DVD as there’s a specific exemption for the copy your DVD has to make to RAM in order to decode the DVD). There’s nothing the copyright holder of the original can do to stop you exercising these rights.
    • If you buy a digital ‘copy’, you’ve not bought a copy, you’ve bought a licence to use one of the publisher’s copies that they’ve given you permission to have on your device(s). They’ll also have given you permission to do things like read it if it’s an ebook or play it if it’s a video game, but as it’s their copy, not yours, you don’t automatically get rights to do anything they’ve not explicitly permitted you to, and it’s not in their interests to permit you to sell it on unless they think you’ll pay enough more for a resaleable copy that it covers a potential future lost sale.

    I’m sure plenty of publishers would love for the second set of rules to apply to things like books, and from a quick googling, it seems like occasionally academic textbooks have included a licence agreement instead of you actually owning the physical book, but I imagine that most publishers are concerned about bad PR from attempting this with a hit novel and also don’t want to be accused of fraud for having their not-a-book-just-a-licence on the shelf next to regular books and thereby tricking consumers into thinking they were buying a regular book. EA attempted to double-dip over a decade ago with Battlefield 3, which included a copy of the game (with regular First Sale Doctrine rights) and a licence key for the online pass (which wasn’t transferrable) and got bad press because of it. Newer PC games often come as a key in a box with no disk or a disk that only runs a web installer, so you’ve not got a copy of the game to claim you’ve bought and obviously only have a licence, and this seems to have caused less upset. This wouldn’t work with a book, though, as you have to fill in the pages at the printing factory, and can’t magically do it only after the user’s got it home.

    Adalast ,

    Just a small point on the first comment (and I wish I could find the article to refer to, but the internet is a giant void that buries things faster than a mudslide). There was a case where a game developer sued, and I believe won, against a homeowner who was selling one of their games at a garage sale because, even though they had the physical media, the EULA explicitly revoked transferral of possession and was, in fact, just a license, not ownership. I remember it vividly because it was the first time I had ever heard of someone claiming that someone did not own a physical object that they purchased in a store. Afterward, I discussed it with some of the used game retailers and found out that there were some games that they were specifically prohibited from accepting as trades for this very reason.

    seathru ,

    Is it actually illegal? Has anyone in the US ever been charged for selling digital software they had legally acquired?

    small44 ,

    I believe selling and sharing ebooks is illegal too. So digital and physical contents is different

    ReallyActuallyFrankenstein , (edited )

    Under US law (I see someone else posted about EU law):

    Physical property has a long tradition of legal rights that are a part of ownership. There’s a thing called “right of first sale” that means you have the right to sell an object that you own. This legal framework falls under property law, even if the media on the disc is also governed by copyright law. In this case, property law is inviolate - it trumps copyright law.

    Digital files are instead governed only by copyright law. Further, media companies could not modify copyright law fast enough to keep up with the digital revolution, so more than copyright, digital files are controlled by digital rights management (DRM) code, and contract law (the long TOS when you access a service or site).

    The contract law in the TOS, and code in the DRM, do two things: they force a digital file owner to treat it as a “license,” and give media company the ability to severely restrict use after the purchase.

    So basically, when you buy a disc, you are simply getting a lot more rights to use that content. You literally own the copy.

    This is why media companies are doing everything that they can to switch customers over to streaming services and stop selling physical content. It’s also why it’s a literal lie when you are told you can “buy” digital copies that have DRM, because those companies will simultaneously charge you the higher “purchase” price and deny you ownership rights as if you bought a disc.

    DeweyOxberger ,

    Maybe things have changed, but in the US it used to be a question of when does a digital file "exist". The law was: when you buy a digital asset, the first time that asset is instantiated is the one true version of the file. To sell it you MUST sell the device where it first appeared. So you have to sell the computer, phone, or tablet that was used to download it. Maybe that law has been revised.

    Adalast ,

    Point of order, gaming companies have been pulling this shit since before digital sales. The first time I encountered it was a developer suing a homeowner for selling a game at a garage sale that had the EULA/TOS clauses that it was a license, not an ownership. I was dumbfounded because I had always believed that personal property law trumped copyright, but this was not the case. I have actually heard some old stories about book publishers trying to pull the same shit, but I think ownership did win in those cases.

    ricecake ,

    It’s in the name. Copyright. As in, the right to make a copy.

    It’s perfectly legal to sell a digital good as long as you don’t retain it as well.
    It’s illegal to make a copy of a book and then sell that copy.

    From probably the most biased source possible: copyrightalliance.org/…/first-sale-exceptions-cop…

    As they point out, most digital works are licensed, not sold, so there are terms and conditions associated with how you can use them.

    So it’s perfectly consistent, just grossly out of date for it’s intended purpose of “make sure writers can make money selling their books without worrying that getting copies made will be pointless because someone else will undercut them and leave them with 1000 prepaid copies of their book that everyone bought cheaper”.

    We should have a system that preserves that original intent of “creators get compensated”, without it turning into our culture gets owned by some random company for more than a lifetime.

    rufus , (edited )

    Because you rent them and not own them. It’s also illegal to sell a book that you rented from the library. Or get a dvd from the library and then copy it. It’s a measure they put into place so you’re not allowed to duplicate the thing. Hence they don’t grant you the same kind of ownership you’d have over a physical item.

    Suburbanl3g3nd ,

    This may be a dumb question, but why can’t crypto something or an NFT be imprinted on my copy of the album/picture/whatever so I could sell it and lose my access? It’s this a function of no standardized marketplace for digital goods and services?

    Adalast ,

    Because crypto is a joke and NFTs are vaporware. The concept is honestly laughable. Perfect example for NFTs, my company wanted to advertise that our service could help with the production of NFTs and my boss had put together the ad for it. I advised against it considering the BS and controversy associated with it. It became doubly apparent when I looked at the ad and saw that he had included several of the (in)famous NFTs that had been sold. I point blankly asked him if he had gotten permission to use them. He said no. Then I pointed out that the fact he was able to put them in the ad without asking and paying for the right to to the person who had spent millions on the NFT was exactly my point. NFTs are a scam. Thankfully he saw the light and dropped the whole nonsense.

    As for the blockchain in general, it is unsustainable. It requires enormous amounts of power and computing cycles to maintain which gives it a massive eco-footprint and sucks resources needed by actual industries and individuals to support. If you started attributing it to all digital purchases, including resales, it would expand exponentially. It is fine in concept, and if it could function in a passive state somehow it might see usefulness as a purchase and resale history for digital media, but it can’t. It requires many computers maintaining identical records in active communication with each other.

    Suburbanl3g3nd ,

    Very enlightening. Thanks! So there’s still some big hurdle of what would be standardized to make resale of digital goods make sense otherwise it’s impossible to police who does and doesn’t have legit copies or who made a copy of the file, etc.

    JeeBaiChow ,

    Because lawyers, accountants and MBAs making policy for things they don’t understand.

    PhlubbaDubba ,

    The theory probably revolves around there not being a transfer of the file as much as a copy paste of it.

    Physical media can be copied but you need blank physical media to copy it to, in a purely digital eco system both the buyer and seller end up being able to have copies of the sold product, which effectively treats the seller as if they are a vendor of the product being sold.

    Basically in a world built on copyright law, being able to buy and sell digital media the same as physical media looks a lot like someone scalping the original product to cut into the maker’s bottom line. Megacorps eating it is pretty dope but it significantly diminishes an individual developer’s ability to profit off their own work as well, especially when software development already encourages so much copy pasting to make software that should be working into software that is working.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •