4 ms·

I read a really excellent article once (which I think was about itunes or kindle) about how the modern content delivery business model relies on creating ambigu

I read a really excellent article once (which I think was about itunes or kindle) about how the modern content delivery business model relies on creating ambiguity between buying and licensing. Like for example, the seller wants to be sure that if you lose your game you have to "buy" it again rather than just prove your identity and continuing license to use, but they can still control what device it goes on and for how long. So here we have Ubisoft taking away, I presume, some amount of single player downloaded content from people who "bought" it because they don't want to maintain the servers that confirm they continue to be licensed to use it. Sure, the company needs to control their resource commitments, but this sort of exposes the whole shell game. It would have been smarter of them to just unlock the downloadables when the servers go offline. It would be cheap goodwill.

zokier 4y ago
There is not that much ambiguity in practice when realistically consumers never fully purchase any (digital) media. So its always licensing. Only exceptions that come to mind are commissioned work, but then the ownership status should be pretty clear.
- public_defender 4y ago
  I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but I'm sure you're right that there's no _legal_ ambiguity with these "purchases." The point is that ambiguity is deliberately generated in the mind of the consumer in order to have the marketing benefits of a sale (and create the fiction that the user has property, which if mishandled would need to be replaced), while also heavily restricting use of the content under an onerous license.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    What would consumers think they were buying if not a license to it? How would it work if everyone bought the actual copyright? What else could you be buying?
    - public_defender 4y ago
      Just my guess, but I think most people believe they are buying a copy of a game. Like you used to be able to buy a comic book or a Pokemon card made of paper. You didn't have obscure rights to the art or prose, but you could draw moustaches on the Pikachu.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        >but you could draw moustaches on the Pikachu. No, you never could. That's copyright infringement.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      I would think most consumers are buying a perpetual, irrevocable (and until recently, typically) unrefundable license. I dont think any consumer expects an older program to no longer work just because the company decided it shouldn't work anymore.
- sD82niNNdp6pYTA 4y ago
  There is a lot of ambiguity in practice when realistically (almost) every consumer thinks they're purchasing an item but they're actually only licensing it.

zokier 4y ago

There is not that much ambiguity in practice when realistically consumers never fully purchase any (digital) media. So its always licensing. Only exceptions that come to mind are commissioned work, but then the ownership status should be pretty clear.

public_defender 4y ago
I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but I'm sure you're right that there's no _legal_ ambiguity with these "purchases." The point is that ambiguity is deliberately generated in the mind of the consumer in order to have the marketing benefits of a sale (and create the fiction that the user has property, which if mishandled would need to be replaced), while also heavily restricting use of the content under an onerous license.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  What would consumers think they were buying if not a license to it? How would it work if everyone bought the actual copyright? What else could you be buying?
  - public_defender 4y ago
    Just my guess, but I think most people believe they are buying a copy of a game. Like you used to be able to buy a comic book or a Pokemon card made of paper. You didn't have obscure rights to the art or prose, but you could draw moustaches on the Pikachu.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >but you could draw moustaches on the Pikachu. No, you never could. That's copyright infringement.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    I would think most consumers are buying a perpetual, irrevocable (and until recently, typically) unrefundable license. I dont think any consumer expects an older program to no longer work just because the company decided it shouldn't work anymore.
sD82niNNdp6pYTA 4y ago
There is a lot of ambiguity in practice when realistically (almost) every consumer thinks they're purchasing an item but they're actually only licensing it.