A simple web search reveals 3 such open-source scripts as the first results. Here’s one: https://github.com/RandomNinjaAtk/arr-scripts

This!

Here’s a sample, but there are numerous open source scripts, depending on what you want, on git: https://github.com/RandomNinjaAtk/arr-scripts

While possible, by the time it comes around it’ll be too late.

Legislation is always years behind tech.

The fingerprinting I’m talking about gets encoded in the screen recording too. Subtle pixel changes here or there over the entire length of the video. It’ll be lossy when it’s transcoded, but over the whole video it’s there enough times it won’t matter. Even scaling to lower quality won’t fix it and then it’ll also be lower quality.

It’ll be like DRM, there will be people trying to remove it like anything else. They’ll break one thing and another will come along. There would still be a black market, but most people can get an unrestricted copy in exchange for money so there’s one less reason to pirate.

Unless you’re actually pointing a camera at the screen, then OK, you do you.

Like every system? What’s the actual distinction you’re trying to point out?

I literally watch TV through a capture card right now out of stubbornness and principle. Anything I want to record, I can just hit a button and safely keep. No DRM preventing me from taking screenshots, I can manipulate the picture to hide obnoxious graphics or ads (great for sports); the sense of control is extremely gratifying.

deleted by creator

what does that even mean?

Something like this: https://www.eff.org/pages/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing

I think the more nuanced take is that we should be making “piracy” legal by expanding and protecting fair use and rights to make personal copies. There are lots of things that are called piracy now that really shouldn’t be. Making “piracy” legal still leaves plenty of room for artists to get paid.

That’s the neat part: you don’t have to, because copyright was never a property right to begin with.

First, not only are ideas not property, they’re pretty much exactly the opposite of it. I’ll let Thomas Jefferson himself explain this one:

It has been pretended by some (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions; & not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. but while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural, and even an hereditary right to inventions. it is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. by an universal law indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property, for the moment, of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation the property goes with it. stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me.

Second, a copyright isn’t a right, either; it’s a privilege. Consider the Copyright Clause: it is one of the enumerated powers of Congress, giving Congress the authority to issue temporary monopolies to creators, for the sole and express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Note that that’s a power, not an obligation, and the purpose is not “because the creator is entitled to it” or anything similar to that.

Besides, think of it this way: if copyright were actually a property right, the fact that it expires would be unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But it does expire, so it clearly isn’t a property right.

Piracy doesn’t take money from artists, just ask Cory Doctorow, a person making their living as a writer while uploading the torrents of his novels himself.

Corporate consolidation is what kills the artists. The studios make less movies per year, so the a list actors go to television and take the roles Rob Morrow used to get.

🏅

I always thought it should be “unlock”, because that’s more what is happening. you’re not buying it, renting has a connotation of a fixed term ownership time, but unlock describes the action… they’ve had the movie the whole time sitting there, probably in a CDN near your home already, but you’re not allowed to see it until you pony up. it’s locked away.

Oh for sure. All of this is clearly a situation where the law is slow to catch up.

All business models are aimed at company profitability. Customer satisfaction is an expensive early necessity which you can largely do away with as you become entrenched.