Are you saying America doesn’t suffer from ongoing systemic racism? Most of the ‘upper class’ as it were are old and white because of the racism inherent in the system. Pretending it’s not there and calling someone a racist when talking about it is nothing more then concern trolling.
You noticed the racist undertones in my post?! You must be a racist!
Lemme see if I understand your logic: I’m racist because I called out the racism in your post.
Does that make you extra racist for calling out my apparent racism?
Seriously, though, I shouldn’t have to say this, but apparently I do: the way to fight racism isn’t more racism. And the real villain isn’t systemic racism, anyway - it’s wealth inequality. Is a black billionaire a better person than a white billionaire simply due to their race? No, of course not. Even suggesting such a thing is overtly racist.
I wasn’t upset to begin with. Was it not obvious that I was making a semantics joke? I mean, sure, the post I was replying to could be perceived as racist, since it was itself a reply to someone calling out racism, but it was clearly directed at wealth horders, not white people.
Punching on things people can’t change isn’t punching up or down. It’s just racist.
Punch on the fact that they are wealthy executives out of touch with technology, trying to build an “own nothing” rental economy. That’s more than enough.
Fact is a lot of wealthy executives are certainly white, and they’re comfortable pointing that out.
I agree with you that you should never use race in a negative context, like if in a similar sentence you wouldn’t replace white with another race, don’t use it.
Never make fun of people for things they can’t change, instead target their behavior and choices.
In this case the executives are making stupid, ignorant choices about a system they don’t understand. That’s more than enough to work with.
Folks here thrive on division while calling for the end of it.
White men enjoy more power and privilege on average
Talking about billionaires in one sentence and then average people in the next makes one wonder if maybe you’re conflating the power of class with race. Considering identity politics is a tool of capital used to divide us I think these are distinct issues.
You are now blatantly assigning the power of billionaires to average white men and that’s just ridiculous. It’s like when people are so keen to point out that women were disenfranchised for so long while ignoring that the majority of men were also disenfranchised for most of that period.
No, scientific, statistical, academic study of different groups is obviously not racist. It’s important.
I said your comment about black crime is racist, as those who say it are not doing so academically, or genuinely.
Edit You’re so close to getting what I am saying, you’re clearly.just.looking for a fight.
Demographic science and work to elevate the oppressed is obviously important. Whatever race or income or origin or whatever else.
Flippant divisive race splitting in a non academic setting (as this is) is just that, divisive.
Edit edit
To be clear, the point is it isn’t their age or their race that makes them ignorant, greedy fools trying to hoard content and disrupt normal consumers.
Same as it isn’t their race that makes black folks over represented in crime “stats”. It’s decades of geofencing, redlining, racism at every turn, reduction of economic opportunity, and so so much more.
Talk about the system that builds these people, and their actions. And most importantly, where we go from here. The greed that makes these executives, the oppression that makes criminals in your referenced “stats”. Criticize that.
No, you’re not, as evidenced by your other replies.
“This” refers to not invoking race as a negative adjective about someone, and instead solely focusing on their actions and choices.
I am not suggesting we live in a society where there aren’t racial or class or age disparities in so many meaningful ways, but I’m just point out that the way it’s used here is not productive.
Exactly! Why SHOULD we describe the People BUYING POLITICIANS as White? It’s not like White Supremacists are Claiming White people hold NO POWER in Amerikkka!
If a black man commits a crime, the news and pundits say they’re a black male. Why should white men buying politicians - which is ostensibly a crime - be exempt?
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
average us congressman is just the boomer version of some reddit nerd bitching and moaning about how not giving a corporation a few dollars is basically the same as killing a baby
Sure, i2p or the invisible internet project is a FOSS project which acts as an anonymous network anyone can potentially access, and host on.
It does this by creating end to end encrypted peer to peer tunnels between its users and then sending data through itself via a path between some of the 50,000+ volunteers that make up the project. The path data takes is random so a third party seeing any communication in full is highly unlikely, and even at that, its still encrypted.
The software that implements this is the i2p router, and when using the i2p router you become a node on the network like everyone else using it, allowing pieces of anyone’s data to move through your router, just as your data moves through theirs.
The UX/UI is very good for new users and makes it easy to access, or host. Particularly, to my understanding, i2p is also very popular for torrenting due to the nature of how it works (in comparison to similar projects such as tor, there is an entire built in solution for torrenting included with i2p).
Am I gonna have to pay for a vpn that actually lets me fake being outside the ‘states? I usually self host on a VM host to avoid incurring expenses, but it seems like that’s not really an option here. Seems like I might have to go for a AWS instance running PiVPN or something.
He [MPAA CEO Charles Rivkin] added that almost 60 countries use site-blocking as a tool against piracy, “including leading democracies and many of America’s closest allies.” The only reason why the US isn’t one of them, he continued, is the “lack of political will, paired with outdated understandings of what site-blocking actually is, how it functions, and who it affects.”
No, you’re the one who doesn’t understand. We don’t want censorship, and we have this thing called the 1st Amendment.
MPAA is the organization that took 2600 to court over linking to DeCSS source code. All they understand is money and power and so far is worked really well. This is an organization that literally inserted itself into our society. Remove them, by force if necessary.
The least productive Congress since the Great Depression? The same Congress who couldn’t pass a budget for the government until 6 months into the very fiscal year it’s for? That Congress? Priorities.
What are you talking about? The current congress is incredibly effective. They just have way more important things to focus on then whatever you peasants are yammering about. Like banning tiktok.
Add comment