3 ms·

I don’t think so. You have no right to ownership just because you buy the song. You didn’t commission it, you didn’t write it, produce it, market it, and so on.

I don’t think so. You have no right to ownership just because you buy the song. You didn’t commission it, you didn’t write it, produce it, market it, and so on. All you did was pay a couple dollars. In effect, all you’re doing is buying a license to play the song for personal use, not the right to keep the file forever.

blandflakes 6y ago
This is a weird take. There are stores that literally grant you that right, today. I'm pretty sure that even in the US, a court is not going to grant a musician the right to force you to delete the MP3s you bought off Amazon music. What is the basis for your belief that you don't have a right to the file you bought? Or are you disagreeing with the existence of stores that operate that way? Or with... basically the entire history of hard copy distribution, like cassettes, CDs, vinyl...
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-owns-your-digital-downloads-hint-its-not-you/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-owns-your-digital-download... Amazon actually will delete music from your hard drive. 5. Reservation of Rights Except for the rights explicitly granted to you in the Terms of Use, all right, title and interest in the Service, the Software and the Digital Content are reserved and retained by us, our Digital Content providers, and our licensors. You do not acquire any ownership rights in the Software or Digital Content as a result of downloading Software or Digital Content. And yeah I do disagree with the license of hard copy distribution. I don’t think just because I buy a book I can do whatever I want, even burning it. I really think the supposed harm to consumers is vastly exaggerated in HN; on the other hand, the harm to artists and creators is serious, especially to those without the privilege of patronage.
  - blandflakes 6y ago
    That article spends its whole time talking about whether you can transfer the rights. From your source, for example: You may copy, store, and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use. All of the agreements cited are pretty clear that you can copy and store the bytes for your own use. I agree with the thrust that "purchasing" music is certainly weirder with these overreaching legal agreements (and I think it's more fraught when it comes to video or video games), but I disagree with the perspective that: A) That this is a lease of the music B) That that condition is justified because you didn't create an exclusive commission. It seemed to me that, legality aside (and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding), you were asserting that customers have no business expecting indefinite access to an MP3 they paid for, and I... disagree, but if the recording industry wants that to be the case, they're welcome to yet another scenario where pirates have a better customer experience than paying customers. Blech, an edit: What I have seen that applied to is subscription-based music, where the license agreement around whether that song is available for subscription changes. Is there an example of this happening to a "purchased "song or album? I've never seen an effort by a publisher to reclaim hard-drive-bound songs that have been paid for (and I imagine spicy legal cases about expecting refunds). Edit again: I realize I'm sort of meandering. My point is only that it's not unreasonable to expect that, I agree that licensing agreements for digital purchases of all kinds have surprising details about what you actually "own".
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      Lol give me time to respond, I’ve already changed my post ten times. Jk, I don’t care. Thanks for arguing in good faith, that’s not something that ever happens in this forum, I do appreciate that. E: Like i said, I do think that unless you explicitly buy the rights to a song, you don’t own it, you’re leasing it. Probably the only reason (judging by music lawyers behavior) to have the ability to a sort of ownership to physical media is because they had no way of stopping you from doing anything you want with your copy. Of course, that’s a different story today, I’m sure given a time machine, that would not have been a precedent. So that’s why I don’t like the argument from prior precedents, since it would not repeat given current tech.
      - blandflakes 6y ago
        It's good to be reminded what we actually agree to. I find mp3 purchasing kind of hairy because it is certainly presented as a "buy" transaction rather than a lease. This is also true of video games and app stores, and then we get into fun situations where your google account gets banned for some reason and you lose, with no refund, all the apps you bought... I feel like the harm is great! I am also sympathetic to the "creators'" perspective. How can you make a profit if people take whatever you made without compensation? I think part of my cynicism here is that the recording industry has long exaggerated and argued in poor faith about what the harm of a download is - conflating downloads with lost sales at a 1:1 rate, which... isn't quite right. And their approach for securing things can be problematic, I remember having a hell of a time with iTunes back with their DRM solution, hating that I couldn't just play the song I had paid for. If only I'd pirated from the start... I think there's some axes along which things could be improved - the convenience axis - can I even buy (access to) the song without jumping through hoops? Can I pay to skip ads on whatever platform I'm using? How many different accounts do I need to get access to the music I'd like? Edit: Agreed, I think if they can get away with having control at all times with the music you have available, they will... and it's hard for me to decide whether there will be backlash or just general acceptance in the same vein as the rest of the walled garden trends we've seen over the years.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    What's special about CDs or books in this sense compared to any other product? When I buy most other products I am not purchasing just a unilaterally withdrawable lease to use them in a manner controllable by the manufacturer. If I purchase a Gucci handbag, I can do whatever I want with it even though it contains Gucci's trademark IP. It would be surreal for Gucci to be allowed to control what I wear it with, for example, or later take it off me. Nonetheless, owning the handbag does not give me ownership of their IP and it wouldn't make it legal for me to sell counterfeit copies of it.

blandflakes 6y ago

This is a weird take. There are stores that literally grant you that right, today. I'm pretty sure that even in the US, a court is not going to grant a musician the right to force you to delete the MP3s you bought off Amazon music. What is the basis for your belief that you don't have a right to the file you bought? Or are you disagreeing with the existence of stores that operate that way? Or with... basically the entire history of hard copy distribution, like cassettes, CDs, vinyl...

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-owns-your-digital-downloads-hint-its-not-you/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-owns-your-digital-download... Amazon actually will delete music from your hard drive. 5. Reservation of Rights Except for the rights explicitly granted to you in the Terms of Use, all right, title and interest in the Service, the Software and the Digital Content are reserved and retained by us, our Digital Content providers, and our licensors. You do not acquire any ownership rights in the Software or Digital Content as a result of downloading Software or Digital Content. And yeah I do disagree with the license of hard copy distribution. I don’t think just because I buy a book I can do whatever I want, even burning it. I really think the supposed harm to consumers is vastly exaggerated in HN; on the other hand, the harm to artists and creators is serious, especially to those without the privilege of patronage.
- blandflakes 6y ago
  That article spends its whole time talking about whether you can transfer the rights. From your source, for example: You may copy, store, and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use. All of the agreements cited are pretty clear that you can copy and store the bytes for your own use. I agree with the thrust that "purchasing" music is certainly weirder with these overreaching legal agreements (and I think it's more fraught when it comes to video or video games), but I disagree with the perspective that: A) That this is a lease of the music B) That that condition is justified because you didn't create an exclusive commission. It seemed to me that, legality aside (and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding), you were asserting that customers have no business expecting indefinite access to an MP3 they paid for, and I... disagree, but if the recording industry wants that to be the case, they're welcome to yet another scenario where pirates have a better customer experience than paying customers. Blech, an edit: What I have seen that applied to is subscription-based music, where the license agreement around whether that song is available for subscription changes. Is there an example of this happening to a "purchased "song or album? I've never seen an effort by a publisher to reclaim hard-drive-bound songs that have been paid for (and I imagine spicy legal cases about expecting refunds). Edit again: I realize I'm sort of meandering. My point is only that it's not unreasonable to expect that, I agree that licensing agreements for digital purchases of all kinds have surprising details about what you actually "own".
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    Lol give me time to respond, I’ve already changed my post ten times. Jk, I don’t care. Thanks for arguing in good faith, that’s not something that ever happens in this forum, I do appreciate that. E: Like i said, I do think that unless you explicitly buy the rights to a song, you don’t own it, you’re leasing it. Probably the only reason (judging by music lawyers behavior) to have the ability to a sort of ownership to physical media is because they had no way of stopping you from doing anything you want with your copy. Of course, that’s a different story today, I’m sure given a time machine, that would not have been a precedent. So that’s why I don’t like the argument from prior precedents, since it would not repeat given current tech.
    - blandflakes 6y ago
      It's good to be reminded what we actually agree to. I find mp3 purchasing kind of hairy because it is certainly presented as a "buy" transaction rather than a lease. This is also true of video games and app stores, and then we get into fun situations where your google account gets banned for some reason and you lose, with no refund, all the apps you bought... I feel like the harm is great! I am also sympathetic to the "creators'" perspective. How can you make a profit if people take whatever you made without compensation? I think part of my cynicism here is that the recording industry has long exaggerated and argued in poor faith about what the harm of a download is - conflating downloads with lost sales at a 1:1 rate, which... isn't quite right. And their approach for securing things can be problematic, I remember having a hell of a time with iTunes back with their DRM solution, hating that I couldn't just play the song I had paid for. If only I'd pirated from the start... I think there's some axes along which things could be improved - the convenience axis - can I even buy (access to) the song without jumping through hoops? Can I pay to skip ads on whatever platform I'm using? How many different accounts do I need to get access to the music I'd like? Edit: Agreed, I think if they can get away with having control at all times with the music you have available, they will... and it's hard for me to decide whether there will be backlash or just general acceptance in the same vein as the rest of the walled garden trends we've seen over the years.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  What's special about CDs or books in this sense compared to any other product? When I buy most other products I am not purchasing just a unilaterally withdrawable lease to use them in a manner controllable by the manufacturer. If I purchase a Gucci handbag, I can do whatever I want with it even though it contains Gucci's trademark IP. It would be surreal for Gucci to be allowed to control what I wear it with, for example, or later take it off me. Nonetheless, owning the handbag does not give me ownership of their IP and it wouldn't make it legal for me to sell counterfeit copies of it.