3 ms·
There is not that much ambiguity in practice when realistically consumers never fully purchase any (digital) media. So its always licensing. Only exceptions tha
by 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 agoI'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 agoWhat 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 agoJust 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 agoI 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 agoThere 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.