I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

  • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Recording from free to air is legal because of the “time shifting” argument. The show is being broadcast regardless, just because it’s at an inconvenient time for you doesn’t mean you should have to miss it. It’s also worth noting that media producers fought tooth and nail against this.

    • GombeenSysadmin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Piracy is just reverse time shifting. It’s going to be on FTA TV at some point, I’m just making it more convenient to watch now.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That might actually be an element of a workable argument in Court. I think it’s a very clever reframing of the precedent that allows recordings of broadcast media.

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve got a better argument but it won’t hold up in court. If a company is making a profit then all costs of production, operation, and provision have been covered, every single shareholder from the individual worker to the CEO to the suppliers have all been paid adequately and fairly for their contribution, the consumers with the means and ability to contribute have, and I thank them for enabling the ability to socialise access to the product for the rest of the society that propped up the corporation so that it could produce.

          If you want to argue that suppliers, producers, and workers haven’t been adequately and fairly compensated for their contribution then why is there a profit margin?

          In fact, it’s morally acceptable to socialise the benefits and production of any corporation making a profit, though the law has this pesky tendency to call it theft.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Companies pay big bucks for timed exclusivity though. If reverse timeshifting was legal, movie theaters would go bankrupt. I feel like this wouldn’t hold up.

      • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I like the way you think, but that’s kind of not true these days. We have streaming services and rights holders just straight deleting shit or producing shitty sequels and reboots just to keep the IP out of public domain. IDK about your location but here FTA is basically dead. It’s all shitty reality shows being hosted by third rate celebs from other reality shows because they either can’t or won’t produce or pay for actual content.

      • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The difference is that grabbing it pre-FTA is also grabbing a perfect copy. The quality may not matter to many of us, but to some it does. And because it matters to some, major copyright holders have started to treat unlicensed exchanges as “competition” from a business PoV (which is a concession from strictly seeing it as crime). So their business strategy is to compete with the unlicensed channels by offering perfect quality media at a price (they hope) people are willing to pay (also in part to avoid the inconvenience and dodgyness of the black market).

        FWiW, that’s their take and it’s why they get extra aggressive when the unlicensed version is perfect.