3 ms·
Another way of looking at it is that you don't own the book neither. You have a licence, bound to a physical copy (that you own though, and that is transferable
by ArnoVW 6y ago
Another way of looking at it is that you don't own the book neither. You have a licence, bound to a physical copy (that you own though, and that is transferable). The thing that changed in the last 20 years, is that we are now buying licences that are not even bound to physical copies, and that are expresly nominative.
I suspect that if books would have allowed this sort of mecanism (on a technical level) it would have been used. From the publisher point-of-view, it just makes sense.
The generation growing up now does not see media as an asset that they want to own for the rest of their lives, and they are perfectly happy paying 10€ / month for unlimited access to media. Hell we're having a hard enough time to get people to care about the planet in 20 years, so getting them to care about this is going to be a hard sell.
- ghaff 6y agoI have plenty of bookshelves in my house and plenty of other media too--though at least some of that is ripped and the discs are sitting in boxes in the attic. I also spent way too much time and effort earlier in my life hauling that stuff around (plus a ton of other paper) when I moved. I at least like to think that, if I were younger today and especially if I were living in a small and/or shared city apartment, I'd have a whole lot less "stuff" and would rely a whole lot more on digital content. ADDED: To your other point. Anything covered by copyright law has some restrictions on your rights as an "owner." So you can't copy a book and give those copies away. (You can probably digitize and otherwise make copies for personal use--certainly you can as a practical matter.) You can't give public reading performances (Most obviously in the case of stage plays. You don't even have mechanical licenses as in the case of music.)