News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by kelnos on Monday August 29, 2022 @08:06PM (#32645128)
That's not really a "logical extreme", that's a straw man and an obvious ploy to do something you're not supposed to be able to do.

I think a reasonable person would see that what you describe is an attempt to make an end run around both the spirit and letter of the law. But what VidAngel was doing was "one copy = one view", which is IMO entirely reasonable. There is zero moral difference between mailing someone a Bluray disc (with instructions -- either automated or manual -- of what parts to skip) vs. keeping that disc in a warehouse and streaming the (censored) contents to exactly one person at a time.

Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by sacrosancty on Monday August 29, 2022 @10:08PM (#32645873)
Mailing the disk imposes a much longer delay between customers, so it massively reduces the amount of times it can be rented. There's the moral difference - copyright owner won't sell as many copies.

But I wonder what would happen if we had some super-fast rocket drone delivery service so it's just a video rental shop on steroids?

Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by Thorrez on Monday August 29, 2022 @11:11PM (#32646244)
The difference is when mailing it, it gets worn out, so after a certain number of plays the renter needs to buy a new copy. If it's fine digitally it never gets worn out.
Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by MichaelCollins on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @02:20AM (#32647194)
Suppose the company threw out the disc and bought a new one after it was rented 50 or so times, would that be a meaningful change to the subjective moral fairness of their business model?

Also, how do you feel about libraries rebinding their books to fix/prevent the books from wearing out?

Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by Spivak on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @01:07AM (#32646816)
That doesn’t matter since you are allowed to copy your own digital media for the purpose of dealing with that exact situation. A rental shop would legally be allowed to make a backup copy of every disc they have in case it gets damaged.
Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by Thorrez on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @01:15AM (#32646857)
Hmm, are they allowed to rent out the backup copy if the original breaks? I thought rental was based on first sale doctrine and backup copies are based on fair use. I'm not sure if you can combine the 2.
Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by bryanrasmussen on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @02:46AM (#32647352)
well I don't know either, but what purpose would a video rental shop have in making a backup copy in case the primary gets damaged if not to rent it out?
Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by Thorrez on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @01:34AM (#32658754)
Hmm, actually researching this more, I don't think it's actually legal for a regular individual or corporation to make a copy of a DVD movie for backup purposes. I don't think it actually falls under fair use.

You can backup software[1][2] (allowed by law, not fair use) but not movies.

[1] https://www.southerncaliforniapatents.com/articles/2014/10/0...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by kshacker on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @03:09AM (#32647490)
Well once the disk was worn out, and you had a backup, you could re-sell the backup

Of course this may be abuse of the fair use backup copy, but when talking digital, we are anyways inventing philosophies.

Other way could be the backup could be entitled to "one last rental" to recoup last 4 bucks or so. I think that would be fair use but others may not.

Re:The Big [Censored] Theory by bdowling on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @10:27AM (#32662454)
> There is zero moral difference between mailing someone a Bluray disc . . . and streaming the (censored) contents to exactly one person at a time.

Streaming is making a copy of the contents, which, if done without a license, usually violates the content owner’s copyright.