Editing Introduction to a Self Managed Life: a 13 hour & 28 minute presentation by FUTO software (section)

= “Piracy” =

<span id="we-cant-talk-about-home-theater-pcs-without-delving-into-piracy."></span>
== We can’t talk about home theater PCs without delving into Piracy. ==

We live in a world where companies are trying to normalize the idea that you don’t own what you bought &amp; paid for anymore. Piracy is no longer an immoral act; in many cases, it is a necessity to retain what you have rightfully purchased from companies that think that word means something different than what was written in the Oxford English Dictionary 700 years ago.

<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202045458828.png
</gallery>

</div>
<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202045338954.png
</gallery>

</div>
<span id="the-death-of-digital-ownership"></span>
== The Death of Digital Ownership ==

<span id="sony-discoverys-content-removal-scam"></span>
=== Sony &amp; Discovery’s Content Removal Scam ===

Sony &amp; discovery tried to [https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ remove customer content from their libraries AFTER they purchased it]. The word PURCHASE - not rent, was used to describe the transaction.

<blockquote>Discovery Entitlements Affected Titles

As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library.

We sincerely thank you for your continued support.

Thank you,

PlayStation Store
</blockquote>
They might as well be telling you to go gargle their balls.

<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202061005960.png
</gallery>

</div>
<span id="the-hidden-redefinition-of-purchase"></span>
=== The Hidden Redefinition of “Purchase” ===

Sony’s claim is that their terms of service were changed to '''''redefine the word “purchase” to mean something new''''' so they could still CLAIM you were “buying” something when you were not. See their [https://web.archive.org/web/20240403115117/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ terms of service] below:

<blockquote>'''10.1.''' All intellectual property rights subsisting in PSN Content, including all software, data, services, and other content subsisting in or used in connection with PSN, the Online ID and access to content and hardware used in connection with PSN belong to SIE, its affiliates, and its licensors. Use of the terms “own,” “ownership”, “purchase,” “sale,” “sold,” “sell,” “rent” or “buy” in this Agreement or in connection with PSN Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates or its licensors to any user or third party.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>'''10.2.''' Except as stated in this Agreement, all Content provided through PSN is licensed on a non-exclusive and revocable basis to you for your personal, private, non-transferable, non-commercial, limited use on a limited number of PlayStation Devices or other devices in the country in which your Account is registered.
</blockquote>
They use the word '''“PURCHASE”''' on their website, but then hide behind this garbage buried into page 21 of their terms of service. The word '''''“PURCHASE”''''' has had a specific meaning since the 14th century, when Oxford English Dictionary defined the word ''“purchase”'' as meaning ''“to acquire in exchange for payment; to buy”'' or ''“obtaining something in exchange for payment in money or an equivalent; buying.”''

<span id="a-history-of-anti-consumer-behavior"></span>

=== A History of Anti-Consumer Behavior ===

Because consumer protection in the United States is a joke, they are allowed to redefine the meaning of a 14th century word to justify taking away your personal property without refunding your money.

If they were honest, they would put this ''“new”'' definition of the word ''“purchase”'' on their front page next to the '''“Add to cart”''' button. '''''They don’t do that.''''' They hide it on page 21 of a legalese terms of service they know damn well you will never read.

They know what it would do to their sales if they said ''“purchase actually means we can take it back from you at any time without refunding you”'' in the same font size they use next to the '''“Add to cart”''' button. They’re not.

This is the same company that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal installed malware &amp; rootkits on people’s computers when they legally paid for content] that expects you to be an honest upstanding citizen who buys content &amp; allows them to take it back.

Right.

<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202050157648.png
</gallery>

</div>
<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202050450042.png
</gallery>

</div>
<span id="streaming-services-paying-more-for-less"></span>
== Streaming Services: Paying More for Less ==

<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202061328214.png
</gallery>

</div>
<div class="figure">

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:image-20241202061922004.png
</gallery>

</div>
<span id="netflixs-4k-scam"></span>
=== Netflix’s 4K scam ===

Modern streaming services are equally dishonest when they try to upsell customers to a higher priced plan for higher quality video. Modern media companies are obsessed with control and want you to view and listen to content on completely locked down platforms. This is to the point where you have to build a special computer or use a television that is [https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smart-tv-snooping-features-a4840102036/ blatant spyware] to watch the content you paid for in the advertised bitrate &amp; resolution.

'''I don’t use the Netflix application on my LG television to watch Netflix because my television attempts to collect &amp; sell my personal data without my consent from the moment I turn it on. I find this unacceptable.''' I am happy to pay to watch content; but I am not going to give up my data &amp; my privacy to do it, nor do I wish to trust such an unscrupulous piece of hardware that '''''opts me into this by default.'''''

Netflix will upsell you to 4k, but '''nowhere on their plans page, pricing page, or help page do they tell you that you will receive a low bitrate, 720p stream if you use firefox on GNU/Linux - or a very low bitrate 1080p stream in chrome''' The only way to get a high bitrate, 4k stream is as follows:

<blockquote>The requirements to actually get 4K streaming working on a PC are buried in documentation and frankly absurd. You need:

* Windows 10 or newer (not necessary when pirating)
* HDCP 2.2 compliant monitor and GPU (not necessary when pirating)
* GPU with HEVC hardware decoder (not necessary when pirating)
* 4K monitor (even if you just want higher bitrate, or to view 1080p content on a 1080p monitor, which is not a problem when pirating)
* 4K HDR monitor (some services won’t deliver 4K without HDR, which is not a problem when pirating)
* PlayReady 3.0 support (not necessary when pirating)
* Microsoft Edge or the Windows Store app (pirating is cross platform &amp; operating system agnostic)
* Intel processor with SGX enabled (AMD processors are unsupported, enjoy your oxidating 14th gen intel CPU; by the way, piracy is processor/platform agnostic &amp; works on all)
* No DisplayLink products or similar display adapters (piracy plays on any display product)

As someone who repairs motherboards professionally, I find it unreasonable to expect average consumers to verify all these requirements before subscribing to a service that prominently advertises “4K streaming” as a feature. For comparison, game publishers clearly list their system requirements right next to the purchase button.

Even more frustrating is that these restrictions exist purely due to DRM requirements, not technical limitations. The same content can stream perfectly fine at full quality to smart TV apps, proving the bandwidth and technology exists to deliver high-quality streams to any capable device.
</blockquote>
<span id="the-hidden-quality-gap"></span>

=== The Hidden Quality Gap ===

Just as Sony doesn’t have the balls(or the integrity) to place their re-defined concept of what it means to ''“purchase”'' something on their product page; '''Netflix doesn’t have the balls to list their series of limitations on 4k playback on the plans &amp; pricing page.'''

Netflix '''''KNOWS''''' conversions will go down if consumers understand the hoops they’d have to jump through to get a higher quality stream, ESPECIALLY if they knew that they could pay for the higher quality plan and get an even WORSE VIDEO QUALITY than they’d get on the normal plan just because they weren’t using hardware anointed by netflix to properly f the user in the ass.

In the words of Eteel from reddit:

<blockquote>Publishers advertise the requirements needed to run the game, and they do it freely—literally next to or below the button you press to buy the game. And that’s even though no one actually, realistically expects to run Cyberpunk 2077 in 4k with raytracing on GTX 1080 TI. That in no way compares to the reasonable base-level expectation that you’d be able to play a video in 4k using Chrome.

Netflix advertises no such information. They do have a help page listing which broswers support which resolution, but in order to get to it (or to even find out that it exists), you need to search for why you’re not getting 4k in the first place, and in order to search for why you’re not getting 4k in the first place, you already need to have bought the service thinking you’re going to get 4k using Chrome…

And here’s what Netflix doesn’t tell you even on this help page: they don’t tell you that while Chrome does support 1080p, it does not support high-bitrate 1080p. Playing Vikings: Valhalla on 1080p on Edge gets you 3000 bitrate while on Chrome gets you 1000 bitrate. That’s a significant difference they don’t advertise.

There’s still more to say about this, but I digress.

And to address this comment of yours:
</blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote>What would that be? I understand criticism of DRMs but endorsing piracy as a solution for consumer issues would set a crazy precedent. Would it be okay for me to shoplift items that are too expensive for me to purchase? What if the cheaper ones quality doesn’t meet my demands?
</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>It’s not okay to shoplift items that are too expensive, but it is also not okay for Ubisoft Connect to advertise buying a license to play a game as buying the game. It literally has a button that says “Buy the game,” but when you read the fine print, it tells you that you don’t actually own the game even if you buy it (in contrast to buying a shirt which you own.) In actuality, if you buy one of their games, they still withhold the right to remove it from the store, in which case you’d be unable to play it even though you bought it. In essence, they redefine the word “buy” to not mean “own” despite the fact that in common language usage, we have always understood the two terms to exist in connection to each other.
</blockquote>
Keep in mind that even the 3 mbps 1080p stream is '''garbage'''. When you pirate, you have the option to download a full bitrate video file. You can download movies &amp; television shows that have '''50 mbps bitrate with high quality encoding settings''', and often '''completely uncompressed blurays.'''

Or, you can stream a piece of media using netflix at 3 mbps. 1 mbps if you’re using the wrong web browser. Or processor. Or screen cable. Or whatever.

And download button? screw your download button - you can watch it until you can’t, and if you want a higher quality copy, sorry pal - you’re stuck with 1 mbps in 2024, even though a 50 mbps copy was available on usenet 14 years ago.

<span id="hardware-format-restrictions"></span>
== Hardware &amp; Format Restrictions ==

<span id="bluray-limitations"></span>
=== Bluray Limitations ===

Let’s not even get started on the limitations regarding 4k blurays. If you want to rip a 4k bluray, you can’t - you’re stuck at 1080p unless you buy a drive like the Pioneer BDR-2213 with older firmware that allows you to back up a copy of what you '''legally bought &amp; paid for.'''

<span id="digital-books-another-broken-promise"></span>
=== Digital Books: Another Broken Promise ===

<span id="kindle-purchases-and-country-restrictions"></span>
==== '''Kindle Purchases and Country Restrictions''' ====

Amazon Kindle thinks that [https://x.com/krishnanrohit/status/1772011384206672370 moving to a new country means you should lose all your Kindle books]. Imagine paying to buy a book and then having it disappear as your flight leaves your country’s border. Welcome to 2024.

It gets better. Amazon has instructions on their website to ''“transfer”'' your account, but their own customer service reps are clueless on how any of it works.

Amazon hides behind licensing agreements and geo-restrictions to justify this anti-ownership garbage. While you’re given the '''impression''' you’re ''“purchasing”'' a book, you’re actually just getting a temporary license tied to the country you bought it in. Move countries? f you, buy the book again.

This isn’t about technical limitations. This is about '''control'''. Amazon and companies like it are obsessed with locking down what you own. They know you won’t read the fine print until you’re angry, but by then, it’s too late.

This isn’t just about Kindle. It’s about digital purchases everywhere. You don’t actually own what you buy. Whether it’s Kindle books, movies on Amazon, or games on Sony, the story is the same: they sell you the illusion of ownership &amp; lock you down with restriction after restriction after they’ve pocketed your money. You should consider yourself lucky if they even allow you to keep using what you bought in a restricted manner; sometimes they just take it away &amp; leave you nothing at all.

<span id="the-broken-system-of-consumer-protection"></span>

== The Broken System of Consumer Protection ==

<span id="no-real-consequences"></span>
=== No Real Consequences ===

In the United States, consumer protection &amp; our congress/senate no longer create laws that protect the rights of consumers. Everything I described above is disgustingly unethical; if I advertised as deceptively as Sony, Netflix, Disney, or Discovery did, I would be fined out of business if my customers hadn’t ransacked my store &amp; broken the window. But they get away with it.

Technically; legally, these companies are in the right for what they’re doing. and even if they weren’t, when they do something horribly illegal &amp; unethical, what our joke of a government [https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-40A1.pdf fines them] is amounts to [https://investors.att.com/~/media/Files/A/ATT-IR-V2/t-2023-12-31-10k-2024.pdf 0.37% of their net profit for the year]

Piracy is how you take back ownership when the government that exists to [https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/the-supreme-courts-perversion-of-property-rights/?utm_source=chatgpt.com protect your property rights] takes 37% of your paycheck &amp; [https://imgur.com/a/cPTYhYh allows your $3600 television to roofie you &amp; steal your personal data] &amp; your content providers to [https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-40A2.pdf sell your location to bounty hunters] or [https://web.archive.org/web/20240820100244/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html kill your wife &amp; get away with it] due to forced arbitration agreement in a video streaming app terms of service. Forced arbitration agreements like the one that Disney tried to use to justify shielding themselves from any liability for a person’s death are ''still legal in America today''.

<span id="a-personal-note-supporting-content-while-rejecting-control"></span>

== A Personal Note: Supporting Content While Rejecting Control ==

<span id="i-pay-for-content-you-should-too."></span>
=== I pay for content; you should too. ===

I buy &amp; pay for what I find valuable. Whether it’s my bluray copy of [https://www.blu-ray.com/Tori-Amos-Live-At-Montreux-1991-1992/19345/ Tori Amos’ Live at Montreux] concert from 1992 or my 22 year old copy of SuSE Linux Professional 8.1 I bought at Best Buy for $79.99. Not only do I pay for 32 year old concerts, I pay for software you can ''legally download for free'' if I think it’s worthwhile. For all the trouble I give open source software, I paid for a copy of GNU/Linux back when you had to [https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/k3b-scsi-emulation-127823/ compile your own kernel to burn a CD].

<gallery mode="packed-hover" heights=250 widths=400 perrow=2>
File:suse.jpeg
</gallery>

I believe in paying for what I find valuable. It empowers me to ask for what I am worth when I provide value to others. I believe in fair exchange of value.

That being said: I will '''never''' let someone else tell me what I '''CAN''' or '''CANNOT''' do with what I ''bought and paid for''; nor will I ever tolerate being provided a ''worse experience as a paying customer'' than what I get as a non-paying customer. The limitations placed on your experience when you buy media are not worse due to scarcity or technological limitations; rather, the technological limitations are PURPOSELY PUT IN PLACE BY THE PERSON YOU ARE PAYING.

At my business, we see our customers as partners; not adversaries. If a business I am seeking a service or good from treats me like the enemy after I’ve given them money; I will treat them in kind.

'''Piracy is how you retain control over what you bought and paid for. Never feel guilty about that.''' But remember that it is on us to pay for what we find valuable, &amp; demonstrate that we are willing to pay for what we find valuable, if we want to live in a world where non-abusive business models win.

<span id="a-nuanced-view-of-digital-rights-piracy"></span>

== A Nuanced View of Digital Rights &amp; Piracy ==

Not all situations where customers choose piracy are equal. Here’s a hierarchy of scenarios that I’ve ordered from most to least “justifiable” or “ok” to make the point. When you hear the words ''“piracy”'' or ''“copyright infringement”'', '''they are often used to paint anyone who does not accept being bent over by companies that wish to re-define what it means to ''“own”'' something; if not take away the concept of ownership completely.''' Do not accept the premise of assholes, or laws, that pretend that each of the following scenarios below are the same.

<span id="legitimate-ownership-issues"></span>
=== Legitimate Ownership Issues ===

<span id="degraded-physical-media---no-replacement-available"></span>
==== 1. Degraded Physical Media - No Replacement Available ====

You paid for physical media that has degraded. The content is no longer for sale anywhere, and you need a way to access what you rightfully &amp; legally purchased. It is still protected by copyright, but you are literally incapable of purchasing it again due to lack of availability that is not your fault.

<span id="degraded-physical-media---replacement-available"></span>
==== 2. Degraded Physical Media - Replacement Available ====

You paid for physical media that has degraded. While you could buy it again, you’ve already paid the creators once for lifetime access.

<span id="lost-digital-purchase---no-repurchase-option"></span>
==== 3. Lost Digital Purchase - No Repurchase Option ====

You purchased digital media that was accidentally erased/lost, and it’s no longer available for sale anywhere.

<span id="lost-digital-purchase---repurchase-available"></span>
==== 4. Lost Digital Purchase - Repurchase Available ====

You purchased digital media that was accidentally erased/lost. While it’s still for sale, you’ve already paid once for what was advertised as a “purchase.”

<span id="corporate-deception-control"></span>
=== Corporate Deception &amp; Control ===

<span id="the-purchase-that-wasnt"></span>
==== 5. The “Purchase” That Wasn’t ====

You '''PURCHASED''' digital media; using the commonly understood definition of PURCHASE that existed from the 14th century that 99% of customers understand - permanent ownership. but it stopped working because someone you never met decided ''“fuck you”''.

<span id="bait-switch-streaming"></span>
==== 6. Bait &amp; Switch Streaming ====

You paid for a streaming service specifically advertised with certain content. That content was removed with no refund option, &amp; now requires a second subscription to a different service to access.

<span id="rental-vs.-purchase-confusion"></span>
==== 7. Rental vs. Purchase Confusion ====

The distinction between rental &amp; purchase was unclear or deliberately obscured so you’d think you were '''PURCHASING''' something.

<span id="technical-restrictions-quality-issues"></span>

=== Technical Restrictions &amp; Quality Issues ===

<span id="the-4k-lockout"></span>
==== 8. The 4K Lockout ====

You paid for higher quality content (like 4K) but received lower quality (720p/1080p) or same resolution but with radically reduced, horrible bitrate, due to artificial DRM restrictions that were buried at the end of a bs 30 page EULA; if made available to you at all. Your hardware is fully capable, but artificial limitations put in place by the content distributor keep you from using what you bought &amp; paid for.

<span id="drm-workarounds-while-supporting-creators"></span>
==== 9. DRM Workarounds While Supporting Creators ====

You purchase physical media to support creators but use a pirated copy to avoid DRM restrictions or long shipping delays.

<span id="random-shitty-scenarios"></span>
=== Random Shitty Scenarios ===

<span id="region-lock-issues"></span>
==== 10. Region Lock Issues ====

Content is completely unavailable in your region with no legal purchase option, even though you’re willing to pay.

<span id="drm-protest-without-support"></span>
==== 11. DRM Protest Without Support ====

You reject DRM-restricted content but also choose not to purchase available DRM-free options when they exist, turning a blind eye.

<span id="selective-support"></span>
==== 12. Selective Support ====

You support creators directly but won’t acknowledge how distributors &amp; other parts of the content creation pipeline process add value (paying for studios, people who support the recording &amp; making of content, etc.)

<span id="indefensible-positions"></span>

=== Indefensible Positions ===

<span id="false-justification"></span>
==== 13. False Justification ====

Using DRM and middlemen as excuses while never actually supporting creators in any way.

<span id="empty-protests"></span>
==== 14. Empty Protests ====

Claiming DRM opposition while pirating even when DRM-free options exist.

<span id="simply-being-an-asshole"></span>
==== 15. Simply being an asshole ====

Taking content with no intention to ever support creators; even the ones you truly enjoy, even when you have the money to pay for it, while using a litany of excuses to justify the behavior.

<span id="i-just-want-free-stuff"></span>
==== 16. "I just want free stuff." ====

No justification, no excuse, no attempt to support creators—just pure entitlement.

<span id="conclusion"></span>

== Conclusion ==

While many of these scenarios are brought about via legit grievances with the current state of you-own-nothing-digital-media with spyware on top, in my opinion, there’s a clear ethical distinction between retaining access to content you’ve purchased versus never intending to support people who have provided you value. The higher items on this list represent what I find to be genuine consumer rights abuses, while the lower items represent entitled cunts hiding behind moral superiority who lack the honesty to say they just don’t want to pay for anything. Even an ''“I hate that industry and want to bleed them dry &amp; don’t care about the consequences”'' would be more acceptable to me, for at least it’s honest.

When I advocate for having full control over what you buy &amp; pay for, I’m specifically addressing the upper scenarios where customers have made good-faith attempts to support creators but are getting screwed left &amp; right by content companies &amp; distributors by artificial restrictions, deceptive practices, and technical limitations.

<span id="final-thoughts"></span>