this contradiction always confused me. either way the official company is “losing a sale” and not getting the money, right?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16610 months ago

    In theory, sharing a digital file can have a much greater impact than sharing a CD physically. Plus, you lose access to your copy of the CD if you give it to someone else. You can think of it like transferring a license for one user to a different user. There is no simultaneous usage.

    I don’t personally agree with this view, but I believe that’s the argument.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5110 months ago

        DON’T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!

        This argument is only a “gotcha” if it was permissible use, but it wasn’t, even before CDs.

        • PopShark
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1210 months ago

          Not very fun fact: The developer from that video got arrested for cp possession

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          410 months ago

          I think you are referring to rules in the USA. In Canada, we have ‘fair dealing’ laws that would allow you to rip your CD and sell it. In part, this is already funded by a levy on blank CDs here.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            410 months ago

            Eh, technically it is only criminal if he distributed it. US (and I think international) copyright laws has provisions for “personal backups” of media you have purchased. There is nothing illegal about ripping a copy of a CD to your computer or burning an image of a game disc, only if you allow the copy to leave your personal possession. It is so you can keep a copy in a fireproof safe and not lose access to your property in the event of a disaster.

            Not that you needed to be told and I get the sarcasm; I am just a habitual pedant and felt the need to utilize the opportunity for a PSA.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1410 months ago

        The amount of people who will duplicate their tapes and CDs would be lower than the amount of people who will duplicate their digital files.

        Most of the time when a law sounds silly for banning something when alternatives exist, it’s because people themselves are silly and don’t actually go for the alternatives at the same rate as they would the banned thing. Ie gun accessory bans, ninja star bans.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Burning CDs. That’s how I know most people didn’t know how to do it, or want to put in the effort. You had to go buy a stack of CDs, hope your computer supported burning, had to make sure players could support the burned disc (depending on if you made a music disc or data disc, if it was rewritable), and spend the time to burn the disc.

            Contrast that to ctrl+c ctrl+v.

            There’s more people who can ‘duplicate’ digital files than there were people burning CDs.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Of those three steps, step 2 is the illegal one. (Assuming we’re talking about music and not software.) Even if you never do step 3.

        (Not saying things should be that way. Nor that it’s not difficult to enforce. Only that as the laws are today, even ripping a music CD to your hard drive without any intention to share the audio files or resell the CD, even if you never listen to the tracks from your computer, the act of making that “copy” infringes copyright.)

        Edit: Oh, and I should mention this is the case for U.S. copyright. No idea about any other countries.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1410 months ago

          In the US, if you don’t proceed to step 3, step 2 is legal (so long as the CD lacks DRM). You’re permitted a single backup under fair use; you’re also permitted to rip the music for personal use, like loading it onto a music player. You’re not supposed to burn it to a regular CD-R (is it illegal? Idk), but burning it to an Audio CD-R (where there is a tax that is distributed to rights holders like royalties) is endorsed by the RIAA.

        • TWeaK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          810 months ago

          Technically Step 2 should be legal, as covered by the old VCR case law (I think it involved Sony). Making a backup of a VHS tape or audio casette was legal, thus it should be legal for other formats, also.

          However the sneaky basremoved then went and lobbied for a law that makes it illegal to circumvent DRM. So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with writing the raw files to a drive, but if you have to crack the DRM to get the files to play then you’re definitely doing something unlawful.

          Disclaimer: “should” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment lol what I say is not in any way legal advice. Also, it could be that the VHS law was more about “time-shifting”, ie recording live TV so that you could watch it at a more convenient time.

          Copyright also used to only be a civil offense, meaning law enforcement wouldn’t come after you, but a rightsholder might. However, they lobbied over that as well and ended up with a relatively low bar - if the value is over something like $1,000 then it’s automatically considered commercial and “criminal” copyright infringement.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            510 months ago

            Regular audio CDs don’t have any DRM. (Unless it’s a data CD filled with audio files that have DRM or some such. But regular standard audio CDs that work in any CD player, there’s no DRM. The standard just doesn’t allow for any DRM.) And so the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions wouldn’t apply to CDs.

            But as for the Sony case you’re referencing, I’m not familiar with it, so I’ll have to do more research on that.

            • TWeaK
              link
              fedilink
              English
              410 months ago

              Pretty sure it was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Sony were actually the defendant, with their Betamax format. It does seem to focus primarily on time-shifting, ie recording live to watch later, however the reason for this was that the content was already available to the viewer and thus the copying should be permitted fair use. The Supreme Court also quoted Mr Rogers’ testimony in their ruling.

              “Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the ‘Neighborhood’ at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it’s a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that, with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the ‘Neighborhood’ off the air, and I’m speaking for the ‘Neighborhood’ because that’s what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family’s television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been ‘You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.’ Maybe I’m going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important.”

              Applying this reasoning to new technologies has since been debated back and forth through the decades with little clear resolution. Subsequent cases have sided with the rightsholders (eg against Grokster and Limewire), but the reasoning behind them was all over the place. They addressed the purpose of file sharing technology and concluded that those services existed primarily to facilitate copyright infringement, rather than addressing the matter of personal backups.

    • KptnAutismus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3310 months ago

      which is eyactly why piracy isn’t theft.

      it can still be a crime, just don’t call it what it obviously isn’t.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2710 months ago

        It isn’t piracy, either. It’s filesharing.

        See Richard Stallman, “Ending the War on Sharing”:

        When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

      • TWeaK
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It never used to be a crime. Basremoved lobbyists!

    • Norah - She/They
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There are companies out there that do allow this for digital licenses. Arturia, an audio software and hardware company, lets you de-register and sell a license key to someone else, who can re-register it. They don’t charge any fees for it at all either, like some companies do. It’s not hard, most companies just don’t care about you as a customer.

      Edit: Their license keys all include five seats too.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      And that’s why you don’t own digital media but only a “usage license”, because the original owner still has the original? Isn’t it then fraudulent if the shops sell you the media, despite it being only a license? And shouldn’t that be cheaper then?

      Well, anyway, harr harr.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 months ago

      Can’t you transfer a game to other people on Steam? They treat it like a physical item where after giving it away you loose access IIRC.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        510 months ago

        Not if you already activated it.

        It used to be possible to buy games as gifts and and them to your inventory to give to somebody ( or activate it yourself ) later.

        Now, when you want to gift a game. You have to immediately select the person you want to send it to.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          That’s too bad… I guess I can’t think of a digital example that’s an analogue of the physical one after all

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            310 months ago

            Maybe this should be enforced by law. At least for digital purchases which are basically a license.

            The only things you can easily give to others are DRM free things, like the games you can buy from GOG. But in that case it’s also easy to copy.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            210 months ago

            You USED to be able to stock up on games on Steam as gift games… I bought eight copies of Fallout: New Vegas for 2.5USD at one point.

            They stopped that. I understand why but fuck, I miss it. Most of those copies were traded for one buds hahaha