3 ms·

I think it's worthwhile to unpack exactly what "owner" means; I don't think it's purely binary. In our current society, I can own land, but still be restricted

by lukifer 11y ago

I think it's worthwhile to unpack exactly what "owner" means; I don't think it's purely binary. In our current society, I can own land, but still be restricted by HOAs and zoning laws. I can buy a piece of software, but really it still belongs to the creator, who has granted me a license laden with restrictions. And these days, of course, we might own the hardware of our devices, but they're fancy bricks without the software that we certainly do not own. Heck, even the change in your pocket is only owned by you in the sense that there are implicit and explicit contracts with other humans not to take it, and what the repercussions are if they do. It may be worthwhile to renegotiate these norms and definitions of ownership. In the meantime, I think it behooves all of us to be not be naive, and understand the terms of every "ownership" contract that we sign.

EvanAnderson 11y ago
Real Property really does have scarcity-- nobody is making any more Earths right now. Comparing that to to manufactured goods (which have scarcity only in that a finite number of copies are manufactured) or software (which has no scarcity) isn't a very good comparison to my mind. I disagree with the idea that we need to renegotiate the norms and definitions of ownership. I think we need to require sellers to be clear on whether you're buying or renting. Rentals are great for a lot of things, but I want to know when I'm renting something. It's very frustrating that I must to heavily scrutinize every business transaction because, seemingly, many things that are sold as purchases are actually rentals. If I'm told I'm purchasing something I would expect it to perform in reasonably the same manner until it physically wears out. I don't want to be required to be tied to any third-party services, updates, "cloud", etc. If I am then it's not a purchase-- it's a rental and needs to be called that.
- lukifer 11y ago
  Totally agreed that the issue is one of customer transparency. "Click Agree to this incomprehensible EULA" is completely unacceptable.

by lukifer 11y ago

EvanAnderson 11y ago

Real Property really does have scarcity-- nobody is making any more Earths right now. Comparing that to to manufactured goods (which have scarcity only in that a finite number of copies are manufactured) or software (which has no scarcity) isn't a very good comparison to my mind. I disagree with the idea that we need to renegotiate the norms and definitions of ownership. I think we need to require sellers to be clear on whether you're buying or renting. Rentals are great for a lot of things, but I want to know when I'm renting something. It's very frustrating that I must to heavily scrutinize every business transaction because, seemingly, many things that are sold as purchases are actually rentals. If I'm told I'm purchasing something I would expect it to perform in reasonably the same manner until it physically wears out. I don't want to be required to be tied to any third-party services, updates, "cloud", etc. If I am then it's not a purchase-- it's a rental and needs to be called that.

lukifer 11y ago
Totally agreed that the issue is one of customer transparency. "Click Agree to this incomprehensible EULA" is completely unacceptable.