The problem is that with purely digital, there is just nothing you can do. None of it is up to you. You can’t copy it, preserve it, etc. Sony says you’re done and that’s it.
The problem is that with purely digital, there is just nothing you can do. None of it is up to you. You can’t copy it, preserve it, etc. Sony says you’re done and that’s it.
I'm not even allowed to tell you how to do it.
That's why DRM protection for its own sake needs to get tossed. It's a massive overreach.
Sony took from the customer what they sold. That they legally "allowed" themselves to do this in fine print while telling their customers otherwise makes it even more scummy, not less.
I'm just making the point that after 10 or 20 years, most people either no longer have most of the media they bought, it's degraded, they're upgrading from VHS to DVDs to Blu-Rays or similar, or they never touch it again anyways. Not true with all of it, but probably most of it. So there's already a kind of expectation that consumer media usually only lasts for a time period anyways -- yes, unless you're doing fancy things like climate control and making copies.
All you’re saying is that physical things aren’t eternal. Yes everybody knows that. Digital things aren’t generally eternal either. I accept that. But look at the timeframes.
If anything I think the expectation with digital files is that yes, of course I will still have my same MP3s from 20 years ago, ripped from CDs I own, in another 30 years.
Remember to re-rip as lossless (e.g. flac) while you still have those CDs.
And I've certainly lost all the MP3's I had from 25 years ago to 15 years ago. God only knows what old hard drive they were on that got tossed. I hadn't listened to them in years, of course, once Spotify's library grew large enough.
I do still listen to those records from 20 years ago.
We are also not talking about you renting music. That's OK if you decide you'd rather rent your music and are OK to loose access to it at any point in time at which Spotify or a rights owner may pull it from rental access.
We are talking about music that someone bought to own, albeit with DRM because copying. That's OK too but then Sony can't pull something like this without valid outrage being directed at them. The expectation was that I can listen to this in 75 years if I so choose.
It's trivial with backups to retain digital data forever. Even going just a bit further back in time books and vinyl can last a lifetime. What you are hanging your argument on is the lack of durability of optical disks a factor for ~40 years vs the inherent infinite durability of files forever after.
We shouldn't expect infinitely durable things to emulate tangible things that wear out because it would be convenient for rights holders if it were so.
The interests of rights holders is rarely aligned with the public. Its a multitude of barren fields that have never yielded anything because they are capable of buying art but not capable of making it. Even creatives have largely been compensated for their work many times over and are largely offering society bondage in return for nothing. More manure than fertile field. I suppose this is an overly long way to say fuck em.
Instead of quite frankly over complicated nonsense just don't legally let people use the term buy if the company can by any means whatsoever reclaim their rights EVER. They should have to use the word rent and give a duration and that duration should be enforced. The simplest way to enforce this is if you use the word buy you cannot encumber the PURCHASE with DRM whatsoever.
Current rights holders should have to provide a means to remove existing DRM. Failure to do so should imply forfeiting the entire purchase price. Rights holders that offer rentals and don't meet the duration should have to offer a prorated refund for the time stolen from users.
The sky wouldn't fall. People would still make movies, music, and write books.
Not only that, it's copyrights which are supposed to expire. The idea that physical media should be expected to degrade through the passage of time sooner than works will enter into the public domain is absurd.
The real problem is that circumvention tools are prohibited regardless of what you use them for, so then they use the same DRM system on works that are still under copyright and you nominally can't provide someone with tools to break the DRM on the ones in the public domain. (In practice people just ignore the law or distribute circumvention tools from servers in other countries.)
It's not completely obvious that it actually works this way. For example, if someone's "DRM system" is that the box it comes in is screwed shut and you're intended to use some I/O pins provided on the outside, does that mean a screw driver is a circumvention tool and therefore screw drivers are illegal? Obviously problematic if so, but in the reverse case where anyone else using the same system for something other than protecting a copyrighted work means anyone can distribute tools to circumvent it, third parties would just put public domain works behind the same DRM system as copyrighted ones so that anyone could distribute circumvention tools. The prohibition on circumvention tools is batshit crazy.
Books, comics, magazines and similar commonly last at least decades if not mistreated or stored badly.
Books that are hundreds of years old are a thing too, but I'm not personally sure if that's pretty standard for their lifespan.
Copying it is illegal in some countries, even if it is purely for private use - the UK and some EU countries, probably others around the world. The UK tried to introduce a private use exception but it was only legal under EU law (this was pre-Brexit) if the copyright holders were compensated for it (which was not part of the UK law).
The problem here is not physical things that are the medium for information, it's the information itself that somehow people want to control.