Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54574 readers

506 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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

347

The Motion Picture Association will work with Congress to start blocking piracy sites in the US (www.engadget.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

135 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can argue whatever you want.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Dude we agree

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.