The Motion Picture Association will work with Congress to start blocking piracy sites in the US
The Motion Picture Association will work with Congress to start blocking piracy sites in the US
At CinemaCon this year, the Motion Picture Association Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin said the organization is going to work with Congress to establish and enforce a site-blocking legislation in the United States.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
own
There is nothing they want us to do less.
You can own a book, or a disk, or a tape, but you can't own something vapid and theoretical like a digital movie file.
Of course you can actually buy movies, but that involves millions or billions and a lot of contract work. Licensing is the only realistic solution here.
That said, such licenses can and should be perpetual. No "out license expired so the stuff you bought is useless" bullshit.
Let's take that logic outward a step...
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
Yes, they actually do. They’re tokens of ownership that can easily be converted to money. It’s called an asset.
This is why this world is so fucked. People quibble over definitions of things while the rich assholes running the show get richer.
And so many in this thread want to keep it that way.
Oh well, not like I can convince anyone here of anything, nor do I care to try. Keep believeing what you want.
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.
Not your keys, not your crypto.
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.
I can own an ebook or an MP3
If you write or produce them yourself: sure. If you "bought" them: no, you do not own them. You own a license to them. You do not have the right to do what you please with either, removing DRM from either is either a crime or a reason to revoke your license, and you absolutely cannot upload that ebook or MP3 to the internet like you could with something you actually own.
Movies are very much the same. We don't have many services that legally let you download MP4s (which is possible for music and ebooks), but the copyright situation is no different.
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.
This guy really thinks watch parties and listening to music with friends over is illegal or unethical or some shit.
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.
That link just takes me to a kbin login page.
Figure out how to link Lemmy comments because that just takes me to a kbin login page.
How do you own a file, then? What does it mean to own something if you're not even allowed to alter it, or let a friend borrow it?
How do you own a digital, copyrighted work if not through a (perpetual) license?
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.
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.
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.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=wmlr
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.
Let me ask you this: if you “own“ your movie, choose whatever format you like: Why do you have to pay a fee to screen it to multiple people if everyone isn’t physically in your home and only to your family? It’s not like my cell phone stops being my property when I leave my house.
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.
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.)
just sell me a fucking bluray without encryption and maybe i'll consider buying them for fucks sake.
I buy DVDs
Permanently Deleted
Of course you can actually buy movies, but that involves millions or billions and a lot of contract work.
Couldn't you say the same about video games? And you can definitely own your video games, and they're digital too.
You own a license to play the game, and perhaps a storage medium with install files, for sure.
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"?
Having something and owning something are very different things, otherwise car rentals would be a lot more expensive :)
In my opinion, you don't own something if you're not allowed to sell it, lend it out to friends, or give it away for free. With almost all digital files, doing most of those things will constitute piracy. All the second hand ebook stores I know of have been killed in court because digital ownership
DRM free files are probably the closest thing to ownership over files (except maybe for NFT grifts), but true ownership of virtual items is almost never sold. Virtual items don't really exist, all they are is the material they describe, which consists almost entirely of IP.
This is also why piracy isn't prosecuted as theft (though the media cartel likes to pretend it is), because piracy is IP infringement above anything else.
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.
The annoying thing is that legally, at least where I live, selling this stuff is permitted, but any serious attempt to do so gets shut down by lawsuits because you can obviously upload endless copies of second hand media to sell.
Licenses can be sold, though, and EULA terms forbidding that are worthless, but good luck selling games from your GoG/iTunes inventory. One-on-one you can honour the deal, and physical disks with DRM also work to properly sell media, but DRM free files are impossible to sell on any serious scale.
This isn't even a copyright problem necessarily, it's the result of information, like the composition of electrons in flash storage that can be copied exactly in seconds, having value. I want my games/music/videos DRM free, mostly because I want to play them on Linux to be honest, but I also can't think of any way a company can stay afloat selling DRM-free media if people with bad intentions are given the freedom I want.
Of course, this is a piracy community, so business viability is not much of a priority to most here, but we need some of these companies to survive, or there won't be anything to pirate.
Capitalist nonsense. Basically, having those files is a legal liability. So why not just steal?
I fail to see the distinction:
story >> book (paper) == own
story >> movie (DVD) != own
That doesn't add up. I realize this post is more about streaming than physical discs, but the point remains.
It’s bullshit but it’s reality. That’s the entire problem.
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.
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.
You own the plastic the music is on, not the music on the plastic.
In some countries with backwards IP laws (like mine), you're even paying a "copyrighted materials" surcharge for any device used to store data, because the media cartel decided blank tapes were eating into their profits too much as they could no longer sell someone two copies (one for their stereo, one for in the car).
Thank god that didn't make it outside Europe. I'm almost surprised it didn't, really.
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.
They want your money for not doing anything new.
So, what youre describing is thieves, but not cool?
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.
Yeah. Fuck these execs. Steal everything they own. Burn the rest. Turn up the piracy and make local sharing networks.
good old DECSS
Remember SOPA?