Hacker News Reader

Comment by rthomas6 | Hacker News Reader

I really don't understand why people are surprised. If you don't have access to the file itself, you don't own it. "Buying" a movie on a platform or paying for a subscription service are both just paying for a revokable license to access a movie. You do not own it and access can be revoked at any time according to whatever platform's ToS.

If you want to own an actual copy of a TV show or movie, buy the physical disc. Optionally you can rip it and store/stream it digitally. Nobody can take that away from you no matter what anyone decides. It's yours forever. If you can't download the file, you don't own it.

Also, most of us are comparatively rich, adult, first worlders. If you like something and want to support it, pay for it! If you literally can't get some obscure media, or if the company is no longer selling it, that's different. But piracy of things you like and want more of is not only unethical, it's shortsighted and immature.

View on HN

>>If you can't download the file, you don't own it.

I would append that with "If you cant download the file, DRM free, in a format that can be read with OpenSource Software you do not own it

A decent portion of the article was devoted to the physical disc option and how it's increasingly uncommon for that to even be offered as a choice.

Like I said, if the company isn't selling the movie/show anymore, well, what choice do you have?

Some people buy (rent?) videos and books, then download a DRM free copy from bittorrent.

Buying a legit copy doesn't make it legal to download a pirated/illegal copy, any more than buying a band's CD makes it legal to sneak into their concert without a ticket.

I don't think that analogy holds. If I buy the CD and rip it myself end up with MP3s. If I buy the CD and download a torrent of it, I end up with MP3s. If I buy a ticket and bring my tape recorder into their concert, I can listen to my recording of that concert forever.

Lol. By default, you can't record a concert either, although some bands do encourage the practice. There's a reason they are called "bootlegs".

>>By default, you can't record a concert either,

Under what law?

The venue may redistrict it, that is not a law though at most they could do to you for violation is kick you out

There is no law I am aware of that prevents such a recording, only redistribution of the recording made would be a violation of the law

That’s a false equivalency, the first takes nothing extra from the purveyor, the second takes significant revenue directly from the artist.

So you are claiming that downloading illegal torrents is in fact legal?

Yes. Uploading them on the other hand…

It sounds like they're saying that if you pay, then it's just as moral to acquire your copy from a torrent as from a product. Would you disagree? The creators get the same (small) cut, the buyer gets the same product, so what's wrong with it?

Something being illegal doesn’t say anything about its morality. Many things that we now think are normal were illegal not too long ago, and in many cases things are made illegal to protect the established powers.

Personally I only follow laws I agree with.

So did the Pirate Roberts Silk Road guy. Terrific life decision.

edit: Brittney Griner too.

So did Martin Luther King Jr and the founding fathers. There is no moral duty to obey arbitrary bullshit. Good on you!

This isn't actually settled in US law, as far as I can tell: if you actually do own a legal copy and you download another copy, it's unclear that you've actually done anything illegal.

IIRC this is the argument that Apple uses to de-duplicate copies of users' music libraries, sometimes to deleterious effect[1].

[1]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252932712

Yes, and as I understood it the illegal part of torrenting was the upload, not the download.

Technically, the “illegal” part is copying, distributing and deriving from; per Title 17 of Federal law (in the US, of course).

That being said, just like possessing a pound of marijuana can be considered an amount with intent to distribute, the same can be said for having a NAS server with 20TB of copyrighted media. In addition, there are state criminal/civil laws to take into account as well.

>>>just like possessing a pound of marijuana can be considered an amount with intent to distribute, the same can be said for having a NAS server with 20TB of copyrighted media.

Not even close to being the same thing under the law, not even in the realm of the same thing. Show me one case, even one where a person was sued or even implied that the amount of digital content stored on a storage server was considered "intent to distribute" for the purposed of copyright violation

>>In addition, there are state criminal/civil laws to take into account as well.

Name them, copyright is 100% US federal law. So what other laws are in play here

Do you have the authorization if the legal copyright holder? If so, great! But if you are downloading torrents from Pirate Bay, I'm going to assume you don't have such authorization.

Downloading, or possessing copyrighted work that you have not paid for is not actually illegal. It is not drugs, and it is not theft

One of the reasons indivual consumers were targeted for torrents was the fact they were UPLOADING while at the same time downloading

Copyright law is about DISTRIBUTION of a protected work, if I have a copy of a movie, and never distribute it even if the person I obtained it from was not authorized to give me a copy of that money I did no violate copyright law, the person that gave it to me did.

I have yet to see anyone cite the section of copyright law, or any other law that covers the act of DOWNLOADING, only the act of UPLOADING, Sharing, or other wise distributing the work is what violate copyright

It is certainly not as clear-cut as you are making it out. It's not theft to "possess" Call of Duty if you never paid for it?

Or, say I purchased a record of Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" back in 1977 or whenever. It is a copyrighted work that I paid for, as you stated. Now, can I go into Sam Goody in 1983 and just walk out with a cassette of the same album? In 1994 can I snag a CD off the shelf at Tower Records? Today, can I demand Amazon or Google or Apple provide me with a MP3 copy?

Let's say I bought every single Rolling Stones album, in every format, etc. I own every song they have ever released. Tomorrow they come out with a new box set -- every song in the collection is one that I already own... so now I can possess the box set for free without buying it?

What you can do is copy those onto different media to make a mixed tape to give to your high school girlfriend.

Or back them up on your computer.

Or load them onto your phone.

You’re conflating the physical media with the umm, non-physical media.

No, you don't possess the box set for free. You already have all the songs in the box set that you paid for, and therefore you already paid for the contents of the box set. You own the box set contents in entirety, just not that specific box set you would walk out with from the store.

If you're confusing the medium with the actual work, consider the following. You own an original painting. Is it illegal to take a picture of that painting and not redistribute it? A picture is not an exact replica of the painting, but someone might say it is a close enough copy. What if you copied the painting by hand on a new canvas to be indistinguishable by human eye from the original. How about if you move the painting from one painting frame to another. Is the painting from considered part of the art? Are any of these illegal if you don't redistribute it? Stealing is illegal. If you take a box set, you're stealing the DVDs not just the contents of the DVDs. If you remux a movie, you didn't pay for that exact version that you now possess. Is that illegal if you don't redistribute it? If you buy a fork, 3D scan it and then 3D print it and eat dinner with it, is it illegal?

It all comes down to laws of one's country. But your analogy doesn't work because you're talking about physically stealing media and we're talking about digital piracy. Some countries it's actually not illegal to download, only upload. It gets even more complicated in the US when it comes to federal and state laws, copyright law, fair use, personal property, etc. I agree that it is not as clear cut legal as he's making it, but it's not as clear cut illegal as I feel you are making it.

Doesn't seem to be much dispute that stealing a physical copy is in fact illegal, it's theft. I agree, you agree. Please show me where an exception has been made in any law that says, theft doesn't apply when the goods in question are digital. Digital goods are goods, they have value, they are sold, and they can be stolen/pirated/"borrowed"/whatever words make you feel better.

Do I think the actual likelihood of an individual being prosecuted or sued for downloading torrents is more than 0.000001%? I do not. But getting away with it is not the same as being in the clear.

There isn't an exception that I know of. What I'm saying is if you download a torrent for a movie that you own you can still get a copyright notice. That doesn't really make sense to me.

>>It's not theft to "possess" Call of Duty if you never paid for it?

From a US law it is not even theft to distribute it, it is infringement of copyright which is not theft.

>Now, can I go into Sam Goody in 1983 and just walk out with a cassette of the same album?

That is shoplifting of a physical product, very very different than replication of digital product

if you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator an when in to Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette and made a perfect replica of it it would not be theft

Similar if I am a talent artist and I make a perfect replica of a famous Painting to hang on my own wall it would not be a crime, it would only be a crime if I attempted to sell the painting as if it was the original work

See that is the key point, duplication of copyright is not a crime, selling it is, distributing it to others is.

> you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator an when in to Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette and made a perfect replica of it it would not be theft

This is certainly false, no need to speculate. There is presently an entire underground industry of fake Louis Vuitton handbags, and other luxury brands. The goods may be amazing replicas but the legality is clear... an unauthorized source simply cannot produce LV handbags at will, and knowingly purchasing one is not legal either.

Do I think there is any actual risk that an individual person would be prosecuted for buying one of these bags? As I said elsewhere, no. It still doesn't make it legal.

Again the problem here is not the duplicate bag, it is the act of SELLING or DISTRIBUTING the bag

I can take material and make an exact replica of a Louis Vuitton handbag for my own personal use, however if I tried to SELL it as a Louis Vuitton handbag it would be fraud and trademark violation.

So in the case of the Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette I can take a star Trek replica for my own personal use, perfectly legal. I just could not SELL IT, or DISTRIBUTE IT

>> and knowingly purchasing one is not legal either.

I would love to see the statute on that, not saying your wrong but it would have to be a local law and I bet would not apply to the context of a digital download.

Edit:

Under US Federal law there is no prohibition on Knowingly buying counterfeit goods ( https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/buyin... )

That links to trafficking statutes. And it states, "it is not a crime under this act for an individual knowingly to purchase goods bearing counterfeit marks, if the purchase is for the individual's personal use." I emphasize under this act, since this act relates to trafficking. That doesn't say that it is not illegal under any other act or law. Customs and Border Patrol seems quite clear: "It is illegal to purchase counterfeit goods." Period. No ifs/ands/buts.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/fakegoodsrealdangers#:~:text=It%20....

CBP provides no code statute under which they have made this declaration so it seems to be more of a scare tactic than at legal opinion. Further given the context to CBP they are also most likely talking about knowingly importing counterfeit products into the US after buying while traveling

That is way way off course from the topic of digital nor does it make it illegal to buy just illegal to import

You have yet to provide the needed statute citation to back your claims that it is either illegal to buy a counterfeit nor how that would apply to the original thesis that it is note illegal to download a copyrighted work only illegal to distribute or upload it

Not watching it?

> If you want to own an actual copy of a TV show or movie, buy the physical disc.

For the vast majority of new TV shows, that option simply doesn’t exist anymore. It’s been that way for a couple of years now. You can only hope to find a torrent in good enough quality.

Just checked, you can get all of Westworld on BluRay.

Westworld is an exception. Only a few shows still get Blu-ray releases.

For example, looking at Rotten Tomatoes’ list of the best TV show of 2020, only a good 10% have a US Blu-ray release: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-tv-shows-of-...

For what I personally watch, it’s more like 5% at most.

> Only a few shows still get Blu-ray releases.

> For example, looking at Rotten Tomatoes’ list of the best TV show of 2020, only a good 10% have a US Blu-ray release

That's a top 129 list. "The 129 most popular TV shows in 2020" is not a category of much interest. How many of the top 130 American TV shows in 2007 have a blu-ray release?

that’s the point, that it’s hard to get your hands on physical copies of tv shows

I'd say this is a chicken and egg situation where if anyone would buy those instead of pirate them, they would make the discs.

I disagree. The amount of people who pirate shows is tiny compared to regular viewers of a show. Stopping piracy doesn't really lead to a significant more legitimate purchases; most people just don't pirate in general. And people in general don't buy Blu-Rays because streaming is more convenient and cheaper.

I don’t know anyone under the age of 30 with a dedicated machine to play the discs. Maybe some of the game consoles can do this. But seeing shelves of movies and shows on a rack feels super outdated to me. A lot of these things feel like stuff that people watched once or never and they were just gifts.

Digital piracy golden age was in the 2000s and they released everything on DVD. But I think it was streaming that basically killed the idea that people would pay hundreds of euro for a box set.

I distinctly remember buying a single season of Westwood for 40 euro!

Why would I want to watch it more than once?

First and second seasons are masterpieces which absolutely deserves multiple re-watches. There are many layers to both seasons where early details are only noticeable on rewatch, preferably after watching some youtube videos explaining it all.

3rd season was just a confusing mess, fourth was so bad that by the time i reached then end I completely did not care about it.

> Why would I want to watch it more than once?

You do you. But many people love to rewatch their favorite movies and shows.

Pirate it.

>If you don't have access to the file itself, you don't own it.

This isn't the full story either though. You can be in possession of a file that has a DRM encryption applied. If the service revokes you keys, that encrypted file in your possession is worthless. So, do you really own that file?

The "file" OP refers to is the encryption key. And, I will reiterate, if you don't have "the file" you don't have shit.

Also better make sure your device doesn't receive a software update that wipes out access in the future based on some arbitrary licensing decision.

This is why the only real way to keep copies of media for future viewing is to have them in a completely DRM-free format that can be viewed using any open-source player software. Don't settle for anything less.

Or the converse! Think of the way GOG sells DRM-free installers -- GOG sells you a license, sure, just like everyone else, but they give you a DRM-free installer, which is bit-perfect to the version of that installer shared on the Pirate Bay's eternal decentralized tracker.

Can I pirate that installer? When I'm caught, which file is the pirated version, and which is the legitimate one I got from GOG's servers? If I wave around my emailed receipt, is that (moral) license enough?

And oddly enough, Amazon has DRM-free MP3s. (who knows how long they will host them). And the UI is hard to use / doesn't work in-bulk to get the MP3s you downloaded.

Note that Blu-ray works like this. Keys can be revoked.

They can make old players stop playing old blu-ray discs? Has that ever happened? I thought they just did key changes that would stop old players from playing new blu-ray discs.

It’s hard to take things away from people and charge the same amount of money and not have a consumer friendly reason for doing it. Even casual access to programming content.

Customers don’t care about corporate mergers.

The last paragraph wasn't necessary to me; while I'm glad we have "if you can't pay I understand" -- but I also think that "if you can pay you always should" isn't nuanced enough?

I imagine few of us want "cable all over again," but that's what it looks like we're headed toward? Offhand, I'd e.g. like to pay for individual shows. Let me pay $5 for Severance and I literally need nothing else from Apple TV.

You can already do that with Vudu/iTunes/Amazon (maybe not the $5 part but sales fire off frequently enough for tv shows if you keep your eye out on Slickdeals / CheapCharts etc)

Careful with Amazon.

I bought a ton of MP3 records off their platform over the years, and recently it all went to hell. I'll take responsibility for not downloading it all right away, but I still think their recent behavior was sketchy.

My mistake was listening to the music that I owned using Amazon's music player. I'd download it locally to whatever device I was using, but my collection was large enough that I rarely kept it all on my mobile devices. When they changed their subscription model for amazon music I no longer was able to stream my music that I had bought. I couldn't even download it on mobile. Zero explanation of what happened.

Instead I had to login on my desktop, and download tracks one by one. It was painfully slow and totally unintuitive.

Keep in mind this all happened without explanation as it relates to music you owned, but still resided on their servers. It was pretty clear that they wanted you to sign up for the new streaming service and we're making it hard to get to your music otherwise.

When Amazon moved Canadian kindle customers to its new Canadian site - it wiped out all owned copies of magazines and newspapers. I'd purchased a fair number but had read few; all gone forever no apology, no refund.

I can already do that with a ridiculous and stupid amount of friction and confusion.

It (theoretically of course) is not easier than piracy?

That's unlikely to be a economically viable price point.

DVDs used to cost about $20 / season, right? And digital purchase of shows (rather than subscriptions) when it used to be more of a thing was typically $2 / episode. Are you still game at those prices?

That’s cheap. I remember spending $60+ on a single season. Especially network stuff that might span 10-12 discs.

> DVDs used to cost about $20 / season, right?

No.

> I really don't understand why people are surprised.

Because this is the first time anything quite like this has happened. Yes I know shows disappear from streaming platforms all the time.

Anyone who says they aren’t surprised is, imho, full of shit. This is surprising because the economics of it seemingly don’t make sense. Which means the contracts must be structured in a way that people didn’t expect. TBH eve after the announcement it still doesn’t make sense to me! The only way it can sense is if you know the contract details. And I’m pretty sure you don’t, which means I think you’re full of shit. I’m not trying to be rude, just honest! However if you do know what the Westworld contract looked like please let us all know!

Well, a subscription service is literally a subscription access, of course.

If you buy an iTunes movie and keep the downloaded file (there is a single file), it works so long as you retain an iTunes account (it is DRM protected, that DRM is account-specific, NOT media-specific)

except i have some protected songs that i cant play because the provider went out of business

From iTunes? I specifically refer to iTunes. iTunes is the de-facto Music and Movie purchase platform (not referring to any subscription services).

Apple has removed movies from accounts many times before (https://www.extremetech.com/internet/276982-apple-is-deletin...). As with HBO Max, it's entirely up to the producer's discretion

What you linked to does not affect what I described. It only affects ability to redownload the file. If you still have the movie, it keeps working.

Originally, one couldn't even re-download a movie after purchase.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com