I used it as a student so I could watch lecture videos while in an area with poor network connectivity. It was my tuition funding the creation of these videos.

What'll they come for next, FFmpeg?

The whole reason you can't do those things you believe you should is because you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things.

Stop giving your rights away! You do have those rights, until you agree to give them up.

When did the journalist sign their rights away to download a copy of the video uploaded by a third-party? If the journo had their way, the third-party would have given the video directly to the press.

The third-party who uploaded the video already waived their own rights, and by accessing the site, the journalist also agreed to be bound by the T&Cs.

What is your solution here for the average schmoe who isn't tech literate but is potentially a citizen documenting corruption?

Sure, there's secure drop software etc, but do you really think the average person is going to be able to do that in the field from their cellphone? Also consider the footage that comes out of warzones on YT.

> The whole reason you can't do those things you believe you should is because you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things.

We need to stop pretending that these so-called "agreements" are good faith meetings of the mind negotiated between parties of roughly equal power. The consumer's only options are take it or leave it. There's a huge power imbalance and no ability for the powerless party to negotiate. That's not an agreement, that's a unilateral policy.

Sorry but yes, the consumer's only option is to take it or leave it. You are not entitled to the product of someone else's work.

I see this as the very definition to entitlement; that you must be allowed to use something, even if you don't want to use it the way the owner of the thing wants you to use it.

Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’.

We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded term intellectual property) I find it unreasonable to treat them as private physical property. It restricts the true potential of the digital, i.e virtually zero distribution costs.

In my view, digital content resembles a ’commons’ in their use and cultural significance. I believe the interest of IP-holders should take a back seat to the far more important free flow of information.

”Intellectual property” has always been stolen and copied and I would argue that the world is better of that way. So much of our art and technology would not exist without these ”thefts”. Intellectual property is only property because a state uses its monopoly on violence to enforce someones monopoly on an idea/concept/information. It is not because of any divine right of an owner to restrict what others do with intangible objects of information.

Also, there is a spectrum. No one would think it just if the Fourier transform was subject to licensing.

You disagree with the concept of property? Fair enough, but there's not much to discuss here if that's the case.

So-called "intellectual property" is not property. Copyright "ownership" is nothing more than government-granted monopoly on copying rights.

Property “ownership” is nothing more than government-granted monopoly on land/object rights.

But fair, once you throw out a key concept of capitalism, the whole thing kind of falls apart. Guess all the benefits of capitalism aren’t worth it for you…

So an employer must be allowed to use the employee and their product, even if that employee doesn't want their work to be used that way... this is selfish privilege assumed by the employer? The owner of a body may not want it to be used the way the employer deems necessary. The artist may not want their art to be used for unethical ppurposes. The producer of labor and art is taken (paid) or left (to die, penniless). But you're right: their employer is not entitled to the product of their employee's work. Thanks for putting this so clearly.

I get this mindset, but there are also loads of cases where society overrules this.

Consider the case of VCRs/DVRs: the cable companies said "this is for live viewing", but people wanted to record video. There was big pushback, but it was ruled that people have the right to use the video that way, even if television channels don't want them to.

We don't have a right to the labor of someone else, but if we're consuming the fruits of that labor, there's a case to be made that we should be allowed to do so how we see fit.

For instance, your current fork is "if you don't like the company's terms, don't use the company's products". Another fork that we could use might be "if companies don't like the users' consumption practices, they can exit business or change their product".

> you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things.

I dispute that I agreed to any such thing.

Imagine a politician went around wearing a shirt that said "by listening to me you agree not to criticize me."