If Wired does not want to write the entire disclaimer (whether because it is too long or for whatever other reason), then perhaps "WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE" should be good enough.
> My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you.
Yes, I think they are correct, and whoever sells you such thing should be sued for fraud.
Although, forced automatic updates can be a problem anyways, together with many other problems of modern computers, such as "always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification" and much more problems than just that, actually.
> Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury!
Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to remotely delete your files like that anyways. But, nevertheless, it is why WORM media is important (although I don't know how to make it secure enough against remote tampering, if the writer device can somehow be programmed to destroy it; however, you could print it out, or even write it out by hand if you have to).
It is just not even just deleting shows, they do whatever they like. For example, if you buy a "HD" show on youtube, you are actually getting 480p, because something something DRM will prevents you from playing that HD version you bought on anything but a locked up air gapped computer in Youtube's VP's own office.
This is a scandal that has been going on for years -- they still sell you HD versions of the movies and shows knowing full well you can't possibly play them in anything but 480p
Wait, why is requiring Windows not outlandish? It's not like other platforms or browsers don't have DRM support. Even on Firefox on Linux, there's a setting to enable DRM-required media.
It is a little different from publisher to publisher. Basically a main-stream OS, plus hardware attestation of any displays, plus an official browser version with the right codecs will get you there with no issues. If you are missing any of those pieces, you get downgraded on quality for sure.
No you don't really, google around and you'll see that whatever you use, unless it's a google stick (not even sure either), you won't get HD. Seems the DRM for displays has been cracked a while back and everyone has just downgraded playback silently ever since.
With zero notifications, refunds or anything of course.
A browser won't even work at all, as you need dedicated software (i.e. native app, TPM/TEE support) in order to play 4K media at full resolution, at least in Netflix's case.
Copyright infringement is about publishing, not consuming. If I copy a friend's legally-purchased .epub that's like borrowing their legally-purchased printed book. Same as if I take a book from a Little Library in my neighborhood, or borrow a paper book from the city library. Why is the transfer of digital content more restricted? A print publisher can't prevent a library from lending their book as many times as they want, so why do we give digital publishers that ability?
The original US copyright law was 14 years with a 14-year extension if the author was still alive. Certainly financial interest (Disney) is to blame for that incrementally becoming 70 years after the death of the author.
Quoting Wikipedia: "Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Copying a friend's legally-purchased epub is copyright infringement the same way that making a photocopy of a physical book is copyright infringement.
It is not the same taking a book from a library due to the "first-sale doctrine", which Wikipedia describes as "an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
> so why do we give digital publishers that ability
Because people agreed to special licensing terms that restricted what they could do, in favor of convenience.
So if a friend has their one copy of a legally-purchased epub on a USB drive, they can give that USB drive to me legally, right? and I can read the book and pass the drive onto someone else?
If it came from a Kindle, the license agreement your friend agreed to as a condition of using the Kindle Store says "Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Kindle Content." https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html%3FnodeI...
Is the content protected by DRM? In which case you can be subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which "criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... ).
If your friend bought the epub on a USB stick from a store, and there is no DRM, and no so-called "shrink-license" which forbids transfer (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Ownership_... for how that plays out with software) then you are fine, in my decidedly non-lawyer opinion.
Note how that last Wikipedia link comments "if someone buys MP3 songs from Amazon.com, the MP3 files are merely licensed to them and hence they may not be able to resell those MP3 files. However, MP3 songs bought through iTunes Store may be characterized as "sales" because of Apple's language in its EULA and hence they may be resellable, if other requirements of first sale doctrine are met."
Which is why you need to know what your friend means by "legally-purchased."
Reducing what exactly ? The movie industry has done nothing but booming for decades with arguably a decreasing level of quality if anything.
People who go out of their way to fight against piracy do so for nothing else than of feeling good about themselves about some weird moral stance that 100% unconsequential about anything real.
There nothing but better hills to die on if you are serious about picking a fight
I just don't care enough about video media to watch anything in the first place, so I've never really needed to pirate movies or shows after 2009/2010. I don't pirate anything anymore but I do still have me booty from previous high seas adventures. It's been mixed in with my data for so long I'm not sure I could separate it if I tried lol
Both the Photoshop/Pantone and the recent movie cases revolve around the issue where the seller only purchased a limited time license, but then sold a perpetual license to the content. To me this is simple fraud.
If copyright was applied to books it would be illegal to read books you didn't pay for. Storing such books would be a crime, sharing such books would be a federal crime and organizing a book reading club would make you famous in the criminal world.
Copyright is applied to books and it is illegal to organize a book club where you hand out copies you made of your books.
Handing out the copy of a book you paid for is of course perfectly legal as is giving away or selling your original Blu-Ray discs. Even though entertainment execs would love to outlaw that as well.
48 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] thread> My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you.
Yes, I think they are correct, and whoever sells you such thing should be sued for fraud.
Although, forced automatic updates can be a problem anyways, together with many other problems of modern computers, such as "always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification" and much more problems than just that, actually.
> Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury!
Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to remotely delete your files like that anyways. But, nevertheless, it is why WORM media is important (although I don't know how to make it secure enough against remote tampering, if the writer device can somehow be programmed to destroy it; however, you could print it out, or even write it out by hand if you have to).
This is a scandal that has been going on for years -- they still sell you HD versions of the movies and shows knowing full well you can't possibly play them in anything but 480p
A recent-ish version of Chrome on Windows and an HDCP connection? It's annoying sure, but not an outlandish requirement.
With zero notifications, refunds or anything of course.
Microsoft's been working on it for ages and they are almost there.
That's exactly the point of PMP in Windows (Protected media path) and (almost) mandatory TPM in Windows 11.
Not long now... and then you'll rent. May be even pay for the accrued mouse mileage, who knows.
Finical interests, not the public’s, are to blame for the overly restrictive copyright laws.
Unless I misunderstand what you are says, I'm pretty sure we had libraries throughout history.
Copying a friend's legally-purchased epub is copyright infringement the same way that making a photocopy of a physical book is copyright infringement.
It is not the same taking a book from a library due to the "first-sale doctrine", which Wikipedia describes as "an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
> so why do we give digital publishers that ability
Because people agreed to special licensing terms that restricted what they could do, in favor of convenience.
Please describe what "legally-purchased" means.
If it came from a Kindle, the license agreement your friend agreed to as a condition of using the Kindle Store says "Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Kindle Content." https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html%3FnodeI...
Is the content protected by DRM? In which case you can be subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which "criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... ).
If your friend bought the epub on a USB stick from a store, and there is no DRM, and no so-called "shrink-license" which forbids transfer (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Ownership_... for how that plays out with software) then you are fine, in my decidedly non-lawyer opinion.
Note how that last Wikipedia link comments "if someone buys MP3 songs from Amazon.com, the MP3 files are merely licensed to them and hence they may not be able to resell those MP3 files. However, MP3 songs bought through iTunes Store may be characterized as "sales" because of Apple's language in its EULA and hence they may be resellable, if other requirements of first sale doctrine are met."
Which is why you need to know what your friend means by "legally-purchased."
It's more like running their legally-purchased printed book through a photocopier, and then reading the copied pages.
People who go out of their way to fight against piracy do so for nothing else than of feeling good about themselves about some weird moral stance that 100% unconsequential about anything real.
There nothing but better hills to die on if you are serious about picking a fight
We cant just take your word for it, we need DRM brain chips to make sure.
There's a lot of it about
Handing out the copy of a book you paid for is of course perfectly legal as is giving away or selling your original Blu-Ray discs. Even though entertainment execs would love to outlaw that as well.
For physical books, you have first-sale doctrine rights. For digital books, your license agreement means you usually agree those rights don't apply.
That's why storing and sharing physical books is not a crime - you have actually purchased them.
> Like Pavel Chekov says, a phaser on the bridge in Act I is going to go off by Act III.
Well not really, Cory and his stupid weird permalinks....
Discussion ended up over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38579899