I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

  • Froyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    140
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Things got weird when we went digital.

    1. It’s perfectly okay, reasonable, legal to record a tape off the radio. Yet it’s illegal to download a better copy?
    2. It’s perfectly okay, reasonable, legal to record a VHS tape off the TV. Yet it’s illegal to download a better copy?
    • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Recording from free to air is legal because of the “time shifting” argument. The show is being broadcast regardless, just because it’s at an inconvenient time for you doesn’t mean you should have to miss it. It’s also worth noting that media producers fought tooth and nail against this.

      • GombeenSysadmin@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Piracy is just reverse time shifting. It’s going to be on FTA TV at some point, I’m just making it more convenient to watch now.

        • voracitude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That might actually be an element of a workable argument in Court. I think it’s a very clever reframing of the precedent that allows recordings of broadcast media.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’ve got a better argument but it won’t hold up in court. If a company is making a profit then all costs of production, operation, and provision have been covered, every single shareholder from the individual worker to the CEO to the suppliers have all been paid adequately and fairly for their contribution, the consumers with the means and ability to contribute have, and I thank them for enabling the ability to socialise access to the product for the rest of the society that propped up the corporation so that it could produce.

            If you want to argue that suppliers, producers, and workers haven’t been adequately and fairly compensated for their contribution then why is there a profit margin?

            In fact, it’s morally acceptable to socialise the benefits and production of any corporation making a profit, though the law has this pesky tendency to call it theft.

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Companies pay big bucks for timed exclusivity though. If reverse timeshifting was legal, movie theaters would go bankrupt. I feel like this wouldn’t hold up.

        • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I like the way you think, but that’s kind of not true these days. We have streaming services and rights holders just straight deleting shit or producing shitty sequels and reboots just to keep the IP out of public domain. IDK about your location but here FTA is basically dead. It’s all shitty reality shows being hosted by third rate celebs from other reality shows because they either can’t or won’t produce or pay for actual content.

        • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The difference is that grabbing it pre-FTA is also grabbing a perfect copy. The quality may not matter to many of us, but to some it does. And because it matters to some, major copyright holders have started to treat unlicensed exchanges as “competition” from a business PoV (which is a concession from strictly seeing it as crime). So their business strategy is to compete with the unlicensed channels by offering perfect quality media at a price (they hope) people are willing to pay (also in part to avoid the inconvenience and dodgyness of the black market).

          FWiW, that’s their take and it’s why they get extra aggressive when the unlicensed version is perfect.

    • aksdb@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Remember that there were also big campaigns against tape recorders and VCR. They even managed to get VCR vendors to implement a feature that prevents users from skipping ads. So it’s not like it’s simply legal, the media corps were just not as successful in their lobbying as they are today.

      • Froyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I can’t find anything about VCR’s blocking; I did find a bunch saying the opposite.

        There were copy protections that prevented a VHS -> VHS copy being made of some movies. Easily defeated, but they did exist.

        My scenario was recording an Over The Air transmission onto VHS using a VCR; not making a backup copy of a movie you purchased on VHS.

        Edit: I do recall a campaign against VHS recording of TV shows, but didn’t it ended basically saying “Broadcast public == public domain”?. That actually led to copy protections in VHS tapes.

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t recall ever having a VCR that prevented skipping ads. Maybe that was a Tivo thing?

    • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I don’t subscribe to the logic but I guess a part of it can be the lossless factor. Quality of pirated digital content is exactly like the original. If you tape something it usually loses quality. So people seem to care less about that kind of piracy. Which is stupid since going for lossy compressed pirated videos is allegedly not less wrong in the face of law.

      • Froyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Let’s get crazier.

        Our current favorite show is Bob’s Burgers, it’s a comfort show we fall asleep to. Prior to signing up with real debrid I got tagged for downloading a 2 year old episode.

        We pay for Hulu. We pay for YoutubeTV. We have a working OTA antenna (for when the internet goes out).
        My math says I have 3 licenses, yet still illegal to download?

        • guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Well it’s an interesting question. From Hulu’s TOS:

          a. License. Within the United States and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, we grant you a limited, personal use, non-transferable, non-assignable, revocable, non-exclusive and non-sublicensable right to do the following:

          Install and make non-commercial, personal use of the Services; and stream or temporarily download copyrighted materials, including but not limited to movies, television shows, other entertainment or informational programming, trailers, bonus materials, images, and artwork (collectively, the “Content”) that are available to you from the Services.

          This is a license agreement and not an agreement for sale or assignment of any rights in the Content or the Services. The purchase of a license to stream or temporarily download any Content does not create an ownership interest in such Content.

          While I’m not a lawyer, I’m gonna guess the lines about a revocable license are intended to cover this. Sites like Hulu rotate their content out, which I’m gonna guess means your license to view their content only extends to what’s in their library at that time. Under fair use, you might be able to argue that you can create a backup copy for your own viewing – it does say “temporarily download,” but doesn’t say you have to download it from them – but legally you’d probably be obligated to delete your copy once Hulu gets rid of it regardless.

          Also, the TOS does specify that circumventing their copy protection is a TOS violation. While the DMCA grants certain exceptions for fair use, I don’t think it requires Hulu to continue to serve you content if you break their TOS. Kinda reminds me of Red Hat’s use of TOS to enforce terms that go above and beyond the GPL. They can’t exactly stop you 100%, but they can refuse to do business with you, which makes it a lot harder.

          • Skates@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Not to disparage your reply, because it’s well thought out and written, but doesn’t it seem to you we’re hiding behind legalese?

            I want to buy a turkey. I have money. I will visit a farm, pay for the turkey (if the price is agreeable to both parties) and I now own that turkey. I will then do whatever the fuck I want with that turkdy, from raising it as my child, to cooking it for thanksgiving, to cloning it if I have the technology. Sure, I might not be able to return it in some cases. But that’s a living fucking thing, and nobody can tell me how to use it.

            Now - I want to buy a movie. I have money. I will go to the cinema, but it’s not playing anymore. I will look for it on TV, but it’s only on one channel, only while I’m at work. I will look for it on the internet and it’s available on one website, where I need to make an account and provide quite a lot of information about me. So I make the account and click through their shitty prompts, pay for the movie and now I can only do one thing: stream it?

            Excuse you? Who the fuck are you to tell me how I can enjoy my media? What if I want to make a vynil record and listen to it? What if I want to watch it on my old-timey projector? What if I want to burn a frame of the movie onto my morning toast every day for 2000 years? What if I want to put it in a small baggy tied to my balls while I’m fucking the mom of some movie exec, am I supposed to put the entire laptop in the baggy? How the fuck dare you make that distinction for me? Oh, because your site isn’t granting me the right to buy a movie, but to buy a license to watch that movie in whichever conditions you decide? Great - here’s the thing: I have my own license, which says whenever I pay for something, I use it however the fuck I want, and if you attempt to exert any control over my property or how it is used I will literally stab you and bury you in the woods, because I don’t take kindly to corporate fucks who attempt to instruct me how to use the things I’ve bought. Fuck you, you should’ve read my license when you took my money.

            There is no “license” here, my dude. I don’t pay for licenses, regardless of what the website wants to charge for. I pay for a product, or a a service. Let’s not hide behind legalese and let’s just acknowledge that these are scummy practices to ensure the wealth of corporations at the expense of the rights of consumers. And until these types of shady “licenses” to temporarily view THEIR PROPERTY are smacked into the fucking ground by consumer-friendly laws, piracy is the only way to have justice in a system stacked against you.

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          The whole “illegal to download” bit is somewhat misleading. People almost always get in trouble for uploading, which just happens to be a part of how bittorrent works. When you’re downloading, you’re also uploading (Unless you’ve changed your settings).

    • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      In fairness, it was never legal to make thousands of copies of that VHS tape and hand them out en masse. Which is how you’re getting it when you download it, from someone doing exactly that.