this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
61 points (95.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43889 readers
2809 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are legally permitted to do so, but not entitled.
What's the difference? DRM.
If you license a digital work, you are allowed to make copies for personal use. However, if the publisher includes features to prevent replication, you are not entitled to make a copy; in other words, publishers including DRM to prevent replication of their works is not illegal because you do not have a right to copy digital works you license, but you are allowed to do so.
I believe the distinction is you have a right to copy for own use/backup but you don't have the right to break the DRM preventing you from doing so.
For example, you have a right to make a copy of a video game (by installing it to hard drive) but DRM willl prevent you from running it unless you have the original disk in the drive.