this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
265 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
69491 readers
4051 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Baseless (and also wrong) assumption that piracy is responsible for by any means significant monetary losses aside, there are other reasons for bypassing that DRM bullshit. Like, off the top of my head:
They know all that. They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
That simplifies market analysis, removes the dilemma of supporting or not supporting some other way users want, and ideally selling the same thing a few times.
And they have every right to do so. If you like it or not. You don't own and have not created the protected content. On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
they have literally given 3 of such bases
morally, no. cartoon mouse says, yes.
On the basis of having bought it. If they haven't sold it but made such an impression, then they've committed a crime.
When you are buying a cure against all problems with miniscule text saying it's just a metaphor, the seller is committing a crime. It's the same here.
Morally. Regardless of how courts interpret this right now. That feature that courts and practice officially do not equal morality and thus we can decide differently this time, if we can provide an explanation, is the main advantage of English legal system and those descended from it over others.
they have literally given 3 of such bases
Also baseless assumptions.
Btw, you don't need to use whatever service you don't own if you disagree with their practices. DRM is shit. But you're not in any position to elevate yourself above that. You don't own the services and you have not contributed in creating the protected content. You have no right to decide anything.
Agreed to disagree then. IMO, if a company thinks it's OK to throw me over the dick hiding behind being afraid of shadows, deny me access to legally obtained content on my devices, walk back on previous deals, and so on, then I have no problem with getting unrestricted access to stuff they decided I don't technically own. Fuck the fucker, simple as that.
By subscribing you agree to a contract. The company is doing no shitty practice since everything is black and white in the contract. You just don't like the contract. But the consequence should be to not sign it.
Yeah, right. Because those contracts are set in stone, and our corporate overlords won't ever take away the advertised ability to download books you've paid for, not to mention those very contracts being written in human-readable format and not lawyer speak. \s
Even buying physical media, they claim you still don't own the content, are only leasing it. It's all bullshit to charge more and give us less. Stop defending this practice of eroding consumer rights
Nobody is eroding consumer rights. The consumer rights haven't changed. Maybe it's time to change that. Change legislation and stop pirating like monkeys.
Accessing content I paid for isn't pirating. And corporations have been working in eroding our ownership of the things we pay for years now. You can stop pretending they haven't
Unconscionability says otherwise.
Yea you're above the law and everyone else. I've hear this plenty of times.
You are the one who elevates random terms of service above the law just because both parties "agreed" to them, not me.