this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
491 points (95.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

58590 readers
623 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

Torrenting:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Both require a license and that license is revocable in both cases. It's pretty much impossible to enforce the legal use of physical media, so they don't. Rather, they go after those making copies.

If you ever want to REALLY own your media, make sure it is physical.

[–] Rediphile 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But I still don't really own it even if I have it physically since the license can be revoked, right?

Like, I get I could still watch it, sure...but it would be illegal if the license is revoked. So why would I deal with physical media at all since I can also just watch a downloaded torrent without licensing too. It's the same thing. Except one of them doesn't produce a bunch of plastic for literally no reason.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You’re not important enough for them to try to get a DVD or PS disk from your home. Amazon is important enough for them to take back everyone’s purchase in one go.