this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
92 points (98.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43791 readers
708 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
92
What is the legal difference between owning digital and physical media? (lemmy.nz)
submitted 11 months ago by luthis@lemmy.nz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sony is Sony is about to delete Mythbusters, Naked and Afraid, and tons of other Discovery shows from PlayStation users’ libraries even if they already “purchased” them.

So, if you bought a DVD licensed by Sony, can they now legally enter your house and take your DVD?

Or can Sony have some sort of DRM that prevents the DVD from playing when Sony loses the license agreement?

I'm just trying to reconcile how digital purchases can be subject to license terms changes, while a DVD apparently can't be.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 59 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

So, if you bought a DVD licensed by Sony, can they now legally enter your house and take your DVD?

No. You fully own the DVD. However if there are any features that are live based they have full rights to deactivate those. You can (grey area) legally make a backup copy of said disc. However, it's also (grey area) not legal to break encryption (which almost every disc has) to make said copy, so catch 22. (Someone I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong). But since it's for personal use they haven't really pressured that.

There is no "license" with a DVD. You bought it, you own it. It's just the law that you can't make copies, sell or distribute them, or I believe show it to your neighborhood. (Legally I don't even think a bbq movie night with more than 5 people watching is okay, which is why Microsoft reeeeally loved the whole kinect camera watching you)

Sidenote, this post makes me so sad. People have become so accustomed to renting everything we have to explain what owning things was like. "What, you mean you could just have it? And they couldn't come take it away?"

[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Legally, you own a disc, and a limited license to view the contents of the disc.

It's effectively full ownership, but this same "limited license" model is how they fuck you over digitally, because without the disc, they can, at any time, revoke that limited license legally, because it was limited and they never granted full ownership. This is why the legality of pirating a movie you already own on Blu-ray is morally correct but legally wrong, because your license only grants you that one disc, in that one format.

I fucking hate it. The fact we dont have better property laws for media and IP is insane.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is what I was looking for, thanks for clarifying. For the last 10 years my friends thought I was insane for continuing to purchase physical media. No more.

OP I should also say there are some fan edits of Mythbusters out there that are frankly amazing. None of that "recap" stuff after every break, they don't jump around. If you stumble on those they are well worth it

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh dam that sounds watchable!! I shall keep my eye-patch raised...

[–] w00@feddit.de 6 points 11 months ago

They used to be on Reddit and were called smyths or something similar.

[–] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

With the obvious caveat that IANAL, I think there's a distinction to be made between the physical medium that an IP is distributed on, if any, and the IP itself. Like, when you buy a movie on DVD you obviously don't own the IP. But strictly speaking, you don't even own that particular copy of the movie as encoded on the disc you bought. But you do own the disc itself, which just happens to have a copy of the movie on it. So while a publisher can always pull their IPs, and make it illegal for people to distribute them, they can't come and take the discs that you already legally own.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

That makes sense, but then the next part is:

Or can Sony have some sort of DRM that prevents the DVD from playing when Sony loses the license agreement?

Surely that would still be a possibility?

[–] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I mean, sure. That's basically how always-online DRM for games works. But the fact is that you do still have the disc with data on it, so generally it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a way to bypass or spoof the DRM.

[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

I think it's set up this way so buyers can't get back to Sony to ask for a free replacement if the media can't be used anymore.

Let's say you buy a disk that contains a movie. You din't buy the right to watch that movie forever, because if the disk breaks, you need to buy a new copy.

However, we could argue that this is just a symptom of a short industry... If my backpack breaks, even after 10 years, the company will replace it free of charge!

[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If there is ever a next successor to Blurays, for VR film or something, their DRM could be linked to a validation server. Once it's always online what you describe becomes possible.

Currently Blurays and dvds are designed for offline playback, and are read only, so their licenses are always valid and perform no verification.

[–] TauZero@mander.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

Physical players disconnected from the internet can still receive offline firmware updates included on the discs themselves. The moment you insert a new disc, it automatically executes BD+ code that in theory could patch the firmware to blacklist an arbitrary old disc that you own. This has never yet happened with a previously-legal disc, but then again for example Amazon has never deleted purchased copies of the 1984 book from customers' kindles, until one day when it did.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This isn’t entirely true and more so for Blu-ray disks. You own the physical media along with a temporary, limited license to watch the film on the media. That license is revocable and, technically, can be removed in the case of the publisher no longer being authorized to distribute licenses. It hasn’t really happened yet but Blu-ray players, as part of the spec, can connect to the internet to verify their licenses. If they wanted to, Sony could make your Blu-ray disks worthless if all your players follow the spec correctly. If you have a standalone drive or a drive hooked up to a computer that doesn’t fully follow the spec, you can copy the film from the media but you’d be breaking the law in most places for exactly the reason you’ve stated - breaking the encryption is illegal.

So there is a “license” with a DVD. It’s just far less enforceable than it is on a system where there’s no physical portion of the media for them to take away.

[–] TauZero@mander.xyz 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

a standalone drive

Another cool/scary feature of the BluRay spec is offline firmware updates (called BD+). Any disc can contain code that runs automatically and can patch the player firmware or execute arbitrary functions. So if you have an older hacked player and you insert a newer disc into it, the AACS Consortium has the ability to brick it. Or if you "own" an older disc but the Consortium starts to dislike it for some reason (maybe they discovered that the disc was printed by a pirate publisher, or maybe there was a retroactive licensing dispute), they can include code on every newly published disc that blacklists the old disc. Even with a standalone player that you never connect to the internet, the moment you insert any new disc into it, your old "problematic" disc will be unplayable. This has never yet happened with a previously-legal disc AFAIK, but it is possible within the spec. Every player manufacturer must obey the spec and implement the BD+ virtual machine in order to be allowed to read AACS content. And if you hack your player to ignore BD+ code, then the newer disc will not play because its content may be scrambled in a way that only the custom BD+ code included with it can unscramble.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Yup. That’s why you buy non-spec drives and backup your own shit.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 2 points 11 months ago

That's true, blu rays came with updatable firmware that you had to keep nice and happy or they'd stop playing. Like one other commenter said - you own the disc, and the bytes on them. If it's playable is a whole other story

[–] excel@lemmy.megumin.org 2 points 11 months ago

Using tools to break the encryption for backup purposes is legal in the US, but distributing tools to do so is not legal because the tools can be used for non-backup purposes.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is no “license” with a DVD.

But Sony had a license to produce and sell that DVD, right?

[–] IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

Media is treated more like drugs. A license to own rights, produce, distribute, and physically possess are all different licenses.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 1 points 11 months ago

if there are any features that are live based they have full rights to deactivate those

Didn't know this one...

[–] faintwhenfree@lemmus.org -2 points 11 months ago

People still own the clothes, I always explain in terms of clothing, it's like Sony following you in a playground and take your pants away because you never owned them.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think this view in my Lemmy timeline neatly explains it...

[–] illi@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

I think OP specifically references it in the post

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Hey Ada! Sorry to bother you, but I don't know how to message off-Kbin accounts. There seems to be a spammer or bot or something using a blahaj.zone account.

https://kbin.social/u/@mymy@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Just strings of unrelated words and image links.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You don't own digital media for the most part. When you 'buy' a movie digitally you're simply purchasing a license to stream that movie at home.

Sony can't go into your home and take your DVD. Sony can sign a contract with the IP holders of Mythbusters that allow them to sell licenses for it. The contract that Sony and the IP holder make can stipulate that they can't stream it to anyone who had previously paid for it after X amount of years if they don't renew their contract.

When you buy that Mythbusters license from Sony in the TOS you'll likely find that there's likely text reflecting this reality.

TLDR: You're not buying the movie you're buying a license to stream that movie from Sony so long as they have a deal with the IP holder.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you're buying a license to stream 'until x time' then Sony should make that really fucking clear to the consumer.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That is exactly why the EU is going to war against ToS. There's just so much shit hidden in there. In a few years, every company dealing in the EU has to make their agreements so clear, that it can be seen in bullet form and be accepted on a individual level.

Kind of like how you setup a Windows or Mac PC. You need to Accept / Decline 7 different features. That's the future for ToS also.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Yes, they should. But, they don’t.

[–] Vej@lemm.ee 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The sad part is when piracy makes a superior product.

[–] lankybiker@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

It has done for many years

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

It always has.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

Sony doesn't sell media on the playstation store, only licenses to access their media.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

You own physical media. You never own digital media. Digital media sells you a license to use the media according to their ToS which they can change whenever they want.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So, if you bought a DVD licensed by Sony, can they now legally enter your house and take your DVD?

No.

Or can Sony have some sort of DRM that prevents the DVD from playing when Sony loses the license agreement?

Yes, and bypassing it would be illegal under the DMCA.

If they’re gonna force you to be a pirate anyway, just be a pirate from the beginning. 🏴‍☠️

[–] Lath@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To side with the other side for a bit, does Sony own the content being removed or is merely its distributor?
If the contract is over and they no longer have the legal right to maintain and share that content on their servers, them perhaps they are not to blame for being required to remove said content.
Evem so, them deleting it from individually owned consoles should raise a flag on what it is console owners actually own of their consoles.

[–] LadyLikesSpiders@lemmy.ml 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they delete a users ability to use something they paid for, you can still absolutely blame Sony, unless it comes with a refund

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (4 children)

If their contract with the rights-holder says they are only authorized to distribute the video for N years, then you can't blame them for uploading their contractual obligations.

Like, enshittification is a problem but let's aim our pitchforks at the right target

[–] Pandemanium@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

If they know how many years they'll hold the rights, that information should be given to the consumer, i.e., "you will have access to this media product for at least N years." Then the consumer can make an informed decision (is $24.99 worth it to own a movie for 6 years? Etc). Otherwise it's just a gamble. Everything else you can rent (cars, tools, equipment, venues, clothing, dumpsters) comes with very clear temporal terms. Imagine if rental car companies could remotely brick your rental car halfway through your vacation.

[–] LadyLikesSpiders@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Both are the right target. Sony has 0 problem with this. They're not some victim in this only working with this model of digital distribution because they were strong-armed. Sony doesn't really give a shit that we don't own the things we buy

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

What about the obligations to their customers to provide what was paid for?

If they can’t provide the service, provide a refund.

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's both parties. The button says 'buy' not 'hire for N years until the contract runs out.'

The implied transaction for consumers was that they had 'purchased' a product and retained it indefinitely. If Sony can no longer uphold their end of the deal, then they should be refunding.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"Buy" implies nothing beyond the exchange of goods or services for currency.

I can buy a ticket for a boat ride. I can buy airtime on a radio station. I can buy intellectual property rights.

Know what you're buying before you press the button.

Corporations suck but you can't blame them for everything.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There isn't one, but the copyright cartel has conned almost everybody into thinking there is.

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not accurate at all. If I buy a Blu-ray or a DVD that can't be taken away from me... But if I "buy" a movie online (namely from a streaming service) my access to it can be removed at their discretion. It's happened plenty before, and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is happening again on PlayStation.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What they have the practical power to do and what they should be legally entitled to do are entirely separate things. You can't infer that just because a thug got away with breaking your kmeecaps, his protection racket must've been legal.

[–] chayleaf@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You're right in thinking law is moral, because morals have a historical character, and a class character, much like laws, and are shaped by the ruling class. However, because you ignore class, you can't properly analyze what "law is moral" means. For example, copyright is moral in capitalism, because it "protects artists' rights" and "copying is stealing" and whatnot. Lobbying is moral, because the entire parliamentary system is set up with the goal of letting the rich "invest" into the political "marketplace of ideas".

However, the fact law is moral under capitalism doesn't mean the law is "eternally" moral. Capitalism is harming humanity, so it must go, alongside its morals. You are right that in the future, copyright won't exist. However, for such a change in the political superstructure, according economical changes are required. Until capitalism is gone, there are no reasons for copyright to magically disappear, and a billion reasons for it to keep existing.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

For example, copyright is moral in capitalism, because it “protects artists’ rights” and “copying is stealing” and whatnot.

It's more like: despite the lip service capitalists give to the almighty "Free Market," they've never met a monopoly they didn't like. And copyright is literally nothing more than a government-granted monopoly.

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I'm not saying it's right, but this is what happens when you're sold a physical item compared to the license to view an item, which is what we're now being sold. It's bullshit, but to say what you did in your op is categorically incorrect.