4 ms·

IMO they should just forbid taking away access. You can't terminate the account. If someone does a chargeback, you can terminate access to what they charged bac

IMO they should just forbid taking away access. You can't terminate the account. If someone does a chargeback, you can terminate access to what they charged back. You can forbid them to write any additional data in the future. You can decline to sell them anything more. You can sue them for any monies they owe you. But if you're providing property-like digital goods, you must give indefinite read-only access to those goods, even if the account is otherwise banned from interacting with your service.

Vespasian 6y ago
This is how things should be and I really hope we arrive at this in the future. I like to call this "ownership light" and it would remove unilateral unaccountable suspension decisions from the equation. The service provider is not burdened beyond reason and there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content).
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content). Are you saying this like it's a good thing?
  - Vespasian 6y ago
    Yes, that is what I'm thinking. I recently changed my mind on this and used to believe that digital goods should be treated identical to physical ones. Fundamentally the nature of things make them different and we should recognize this when discussing what rights which party should get. Whether the two facts I stated make sense is certainly up for debate, but I don't believe we can move forward insisting that rules imposed by the physicalness ( is this a word) are the same as rules imposed by human society. The goal must be to find a set of rules that is fair to all participants and I'm certain this it is possible to do this.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      If I buy a movie on a DVD, should I be allowed to sell it when I'm done with it? If so, what's the difference between that and selling a digital copy when I'm done with it from the copyright owner's perspective?

Vespasian 6y ago

This is how things should be and I really hope we arrive at this in the future. I like to call this "ownership light" and it would remove unilateral unaccountable suspension decisions from the equation. The service provider is not burdened beyond reason and there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content).

josephcsible 6y ago
> there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content). Are you saying this like it's a good thing?
- Vespasian 6y ago
  Yes, that is what I'm thinking. I recently changed my mind on this and used to believe that digital goods should be treated identical to physical ones. Fundamentally the nature of things make them different and we should recognize this when discussing what rights which party should get. Whether the two facts I stated make sense is certainly up for debate, but I don't believe we can move forward insisting that rules imposed by the physicalness ( is this a word) are the same as rules imposed by human society. The goal must be to find a set of rules that is fair to all participants and I'm certain this it is possible to do this.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    If I buy a movie on a DVD, should I be allowed to sell it when I'm done with it? If so, what's the difference between that and selling a digital copy when I'm done with it from the copyright owner's perspective?