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So it’s perfectly consistent, just grossly out of date for it’s intended purpose of “make sure writers can make money selling their books without worrying that getting copies made will be pointless because someone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.
It’s not? I see digital files being bought and sold all over the place. 3rd party key retailers and even the digital goods earned within games themselves. It’s only illegal for you to copy and sell copies of digital goods. If you have a way to sell the original thing and no longer have access to it, it’s perfectly legal. It’s just not many things let you do that.
Both require a license and that license is revocable in both cases. It’s pretty much impossible to enforce the legal use of physical media, so they don’t. Rather, they go after those making copies.
If you ever want to REALLY own your media, make sure it is physical.
Logically yes, downloading or a sharing a digital file is a “lost sale” - but as Aaron Swartz said - “lost sales” are also caused by Earthquakes, Libraries/DVD Rentals, Negative Yelp reviews, Market Competitors, and so on. Why just blame it on file sharing…
Many times you don’t own the digital good, you subscribe to it. No I’m not joking, that’s why services can usually take it away at any time. You normally own “a licence to play it on a single PC” or similar.
This isnt apples to oranges per se. Selling digital goods is fine, it’s copying it. Similar to how photocopying a book and selling it would not be okay.
It’s important to note there is a narrative push by companies too. They spend lots of money putting videos on every DVD saying “downloading is stealing” because if society thinks piracy and stealing is the same, it helps them litigate and make more money.
Your idea of a lost sale is a hard one, from a media company point of view, it’s about making money. So if you can make people believe “a download is a lost sale” or “sharing a digital file is a lot sale” etc, then you can use that to sue individuals, isps, sharing sites, search engines etc and make more and more money while also having more power over your product.
If you’ve never been given the option to download it and save it and use it from there, how would you “own” it if the streaming service takes it offline?
If you can’t transfer ownership of something, or have it past the lifespan of the shop you bought it from, do you really own it? I would say not.
That’s not the ownership though, that’s a subscription to a service. Ownership is something like buying songs on iTunes not listening to them on Apple music.
a method of transmitting or receiving data (especially video and audio material) over a computer network as a steady, continuous flow, allowing playback to start while the rest of the data is still being received.
Whether it’s subscribed, “purchased” or free, if you don’t have the full file to copy and do what you want with it, it’s streaming.
Because the book and disc guys couldn’t figure out a way to stop you back then.
Nowadays college books have one time codes for tests, and games will sometimes have codes included for inportant unlocks to force used purchasers to pay up.
I’ve not seen that in games for a while tbh. I think “Project Ten Dollar” died a death and was replaced with a constant barrage of micro-transactions and not so micro-transactions, sprinkled with FOMO dust.
In contrary. I do. But I fucking hate the whole useless, greedy industry that sits on the artists neck. I prefer p2p transactions so that the artists I like can keep producing more of their art.
Dude, of course there is a difference. If you sell a physical good you do not have that physical good anymore. If you sell a digital copy you can keep selling that digital copy because you do not necessarily give it away or delete it.
Saying that there is no difference at all between the two is silly.
To be clear, I am not saying this justifies anything regarding copyright, but it is a difference if you can sell something over and over again or just once.
If you sell a digital copy you can keep selling that digital copy because you do not necessarily give it away or delete it.
Steam and other DRM systems ensure that copies cannot be played. Yet you can’t sell your Steam games. It is my understanding that in the EU, you can sell your Steam games. So there is no legitimate reason you can’t sell digital goods.
Because they somehow don’t consider that someone could have copied the books or discs before reselling them, but it immediately comes to their mind with digital copies riddled with DRMs
One thing to keep in mind that may be relevant: copies of non-digital things are different than digital copies.
Digital (meant here as bit-for-bit) copies are effectively impossible with analog media. If I copy a book (the whole book, its layout, etc., and not just the linguistic content), it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn’t true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.
If it sounds like an infinite money glitch on the digital side, that’s because it is. The only catch is that people have to own equipment to interpret the bits. Realistically, any form of digital media is just a record of how to set the bits on their own hardware.
Crucially: if people could resell those perfect digital copies, then there would be no market for the company which created it originally. It all comes down to the fact that companies no longer have to worry about generational differences between copies, and as a result, they’re already using this “infinite money glitch” and just paying for distribution. That market goes away if people can resell digital copies, because they can also just make new copies on their own.
it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn’t true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.
There is one exception: reposted memes, they are losing pixels more and more. /s
And also just websites compressing images without the user getting any input. A meme that goes from Facebook to Twitter to Reddit to Twitter to Tumblr to Reddit to here will likely be compressed every time it gets reuploaded. Most social media sites use some form of image compression.
And it obviously doesn't help that artefacts from compression are multiplicative.
This is why you use PNG or GIF formats. Lossless compression on the PNG side and a LUT on the GIF side. Nothing to get compressed since it is literally just a grid of numbers and a table with the hex codes.
I really wish the social media companies and phone manufacturers would switch to PNG. So much better than JPG.
I know, is sad. Would love to see them converting the JPG to PNG. I do see a lot of images coming off here as GIF though, which Facebook doesn’t let me send to people because fuck Facebook.
The storage demands between small compressed JPEG’s and decent quality PNG’s is massive. That’s a lot to ask of people who are self hosting this without any of us paying for it. Especially since 99% of the images loaded up here are one off jokes that are compressed versions from somewhere else already. Pretty clear example of “the juice isn’t worth the squeeze” IMO
If only google hadn’t decided to shit all over JXL. We could have lossless images with an excellent compression algorithm (at least better than the .zip style deflate png uses) at this very moment.
It’s technically illegal to make a copy of that data for yourself and then to sell the original (while keeping the copy). That obviously doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but…
It's not that straightforward. Copyright is different in that infringement is only enforced by rightsholders through litigation. That means they hato find you, sue you, and make a convincing argument that your backup is harming their market viability.
On that last point, some personal backup is unlikely to be found to be infringing. It's more problematic if it's something shared or done in a significant scale.
Add comment