this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1105 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
290 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Froyn@kbin.social 142 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Things got weird when we went digital.

  1. It's perfectly okay, reasonable, legal to record a tape off the radio. Yet it's illegal to download a better copy?
  2. It's perfectly okay, reasonable, legal to record a VHS tape off the TV. Yet it's illegal to download a better copy?
[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 82 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Recording from free to air is legal because of the "time shifting" argument. The show is being broadcast regardless, just because it's at an inconvenient time for you doesn't mean you should have to miss it. It's also worth noting that media producers fought tooth and nail against this.

[–] GombeenSysadmin@feddit.uk 50 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Piracy is just reverse time shifting. It’s going to be on FTA TV at some point, I’m just making it more convenient to watch now.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That might actually be an element of a workable argument in Court. I think it's a very clever reframing of the precedent that allows recordings of broadcast media.

[–] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I've got a better argument but it won't hold up in court. If a company is making a profit then all costs of production, operation, and provision have been covered, every single shareholder from the individual worker to the CEO to the suppliers have all been paid adequately and fairly for their contribution, the consumers with the means and ability to contribute have, and I thank them for enabling the ability to socialise access to the product for the rest of the society that propped up the corporation so that it could produce.

If you want to argue that suppliers, producers, and workers haven't been adequately and fairly compensated for their contribution then why is there a profit margin?

In fact, it's morally acceptable to socialise the benefits and production of any corporation making a profit, though the law has this pesky tendency to call it theft.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 4 points 11 months ago

Companies pay big bucks for timed exclusivity though. If reverse timeshifting was legal, movie theaters would go bankrupt. I feel like this wouldn't hold up.

[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I like the way you think, but that's kind of not true these days. We have streaming services and rights holders just straight deleting shit or producing shitty sequels and reboots just to keep the IP out of public domain. IDK about your location but here FTA is basically dead. It's all shitty reality shows being hosted by third rate celebs from other reality shows because they either can't or won't produce or pay for actual content.

[–] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The difference is that grabbing it pre-FTA is also grabbing a perfect copy. The quality may not matter to many of us, but to some it does. And because it matters to some, major copyright holders have started to treat unlicensed exchanges as “competition” from a business PoV (which is a concession from strictly seeing it as crime). So their business strategy is to compete with the unlicensed channels by offering perfect quality media at a price (they hope) people are willing to pay (also in part to avoid the inconvenience and dodgyness of the black market).

FWiW, that’s their take and it’s why they get extra aggressive when the unlicensed version is perfect.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I don't subscribe to the logic but I guess a part of it can be the lossless factor. Quality of pirated digital content is exactly like the original. If you tape something it usually loses quality. So people seem to care less about that kind of piracy. Which is stupid since going for lossy compressed pirated videos is allegedly not less wrong in the face of law.

[–] Froyn@kbin.social 31 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Let's get crazier.

Our current favorite show is Bob's Burgers, it's a comfort show we fall asleep to. Prior to signing up with real debrid I got tagged for downloading a 2 year old episode.

We pay for Hulu. We pay for YoutubeTV. We have a working OTA antenna (for when the internet goes out).
My math says I have 3 licenses, yet still illegal to download?

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

The law is a sham and it doesn't deserve anyone's respect.

[–] jimbo@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

The whole "illegal to download" bit is somewhat misleading. People almost always get in trouble for uploading, which just happens to be a part of how bittorrent works. When you're downloading, you're also uploading (Unless you've changed your settings).

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Remember that there were also big campaigns against tape recorders and VCR. They even managed to get VCR vendors to implement a feature that prevents users from skipping ads. So it's not like it's simply legal, the media corps were just not as successful in their lobbying as they are today.

[–] Froyn@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I can't find anything about VCR's blocking; I did find a bunch saying the opposite.

There were copy protections that prevented a VHS -> VHS copy being made of some movies. Easily defeated, but they did exist.

My scenario was recording an Over The Air transmission onto VHS using a VCR; not making a backup copy of a movie you purchased on VHS.

Edit: I do recall a campaign against VHS recording of TV shows, but didn't it ended basically saying "Broadcast public == public domain"?. That actually led to copy protections in VHS tapes.

[–] jimbo@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I don't recall ever having a VCR that prevented skipping ads. Maybe that was a Tivo thing?

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 5 points 11 months ago

In fairness, it was never legal to make thousands of copies of that VHS tape and hand them out en masse. Which is how you're getting it when you download it, from someone doing exactly that.