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

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    In theory, sharing a digital file can have a much greater impact than sharing a CD physically. Plus, you lose access to your copy of the CD if you give it to someone else. You can think of it like transferring a license for one user to a different user. There is no simultaneous usage.

    I don’t personally agree with this view, but I believe that’s the argument.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        DON’T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!

        This argument is only a “gotcha” if it was permissible use, but it wasn’t, even before CDs.

      • mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The amount of people who will duplicate their tapes and CDs would be lower than the amount of people who will duplicate their digital files.

        Most of the time when a law sounds silly for banning something when alternatives exist, it’s because people themselves are silly and don’t actually go for the alternatives at the same rate as they would the banned thing. Ie gun accessory bans, ninja star bans.

          • mhague@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Burning CDs. That’s how I know most people didn’t know how to do it, or want to put in the effort. You had to go buy a stack of CDs, hope your computer supported burning, had to make sure players could support the burned disc (depending on if you made a music disc or data disc, if it was rewritable), and spend the time to burn the disc.

            Contrast that to ctrl+c ctrl+v.

            There’s more people who can ‘duplicate’ digital files than there were people burning CDs.

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Anecdotal evidence is literally evidence of one (which disproves “zero” claims). Collections of anecdotal evidences make statistics making your dismissive statement dumb.

                I’m adding to the pile. I can name literally over a dozen people in my childhood who copied Discs.

      • TootSweet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Of those three steps, step 2 is the illegal one. (Assuming we’re talking about music and not software.) Even if you never do step 3.

        (Not saying things should be that way. Nor that it’s not difficult to enforce. Only that as the laws are today, even ripping a music CD to your hard drive without any intention to share the audio files or resell the CD, even if you never listen to the tracks from your computer, the act of making that “copy” infringes copyright.)

        Edit: Oh, and I should mention this is the case for U.S. copyright. No idea about any other countries.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    One thing to keep in mind that may be relevant: copies of non-digital things are different than digital copies.

    Digital (meant here as bit-for-bit) copies are effectively impossible with analog media. If I copy a book (the whole book, its layout, etc., and not just the linguistic content), it will ultimately look like a copy, and each successive copy from that copy will look worse. This is of course true with forms of tape media and a lot of others. But it isn’t true of digital media, where I could share a bit-for-bit copy of data that is absolutely identical to the original.

    If it sounds like an infinite money glitch on the digital side, that’s because it is. The only catch is that people have to own equipment to interpret the bits. Realistically, any form of digital media is just a record of how to set the bits on their own hardware.

    Crucially: if people could resell those perfect digital copies, then there would be no market for the company which created it originally. It all comes down to the fact that companies no longer have to worry about generational differences between copies, and as a result, they’re already using this “infinite money glitch” and just paying for distribution. That market goes away if people can resell digital copies, because they can also just make new copies on their own.