4 ms·

The article says: > Owners of Roald Dahl ebooks ... > Readers who bought electronic versions ... It has been proven to us (members of the general populace) t

The article says: > Owners of Roald Dahl ebooks ... > Readers who bought electronic versions ... It has been proven to us (members of the general populace) time and again that we're not actually "buying" and we don't "own" digital media: whether ebooks, digital movies, music, or games. We are licensing or renting them. And apparently the terms of the license often include altering the contents or removing access (e.g. the Kindle 1984 fiasco) at the whim of the licensor. To be honest, I'm not really sure if the license explicitly allows that or not -- I'm not reading multi-page terms and conditions every time I make a digital purchase, even though I know I should -- but it has certainly happened on multiple occasions. It's odd to me that we've accepted this for digital purchases. Can you imagine checking out at a grocery store and being presented with a hundred page amalgamation of terms of use for every item you're buying? I know government regulation is a non-starter for many, but I personally would not mind if the government established some sort of digital version of the first sale doctrine and stopped businesses from using terms like "buy", "purchase", or "own" for practices that did not meet those criteria. Sure, let Amazon license you ebooks that can be edited or revoked at the whim of Amazon or the publisher, but let's "call a fig a fig and a trough a trough".

PointyFluff 4y ago
[dead]
WeylandYutani 4y ago
Pirates win again.
- nine_k 4y ago
  An ethical pirate buys an official copy to support the creators, but uses a ripped copy because it's not only convenient but permanent.
  - account42 4y ago
    Is it really ethical to reward abusive business practices?
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Is it worth supporting the creator here? When the creator is just a company that owns the work of another and treats their customer in this fashion?
    - smugma 4y ago
      A company that owns the work of another is not a creator. The moral rights (droits moraux), which include the right of attribution, sit with the creator and are not transferable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
    - nine_k 4y ago
      It depends. But usually smaller musical labels, or smaller publishing houses, or even large Hollywood studios directly relate to the creators, and share profits with them. Buying directly from creators is great when available, and usually the resulting file is unencumbered enough so that pirating it just makes no sense. (This is why most money I spent on music pass through Bandcamp.)
  - justjonathan 4y ago
    That’s a lot of trouble, more than straight piracy and more than straight commercial “purchase”. That seems an unreasonable burden to impose on normal people.
_siis 4y ago
That's not how it should be though. Its a direct attack on property rights which are a cornerstone of most successful civilizations.
- bjowen 4y ago
  Yes. You might call the emergence of ownership that is contingent on the whims of a megacorporation rent-seeking.

PointyFluff 4y ago

[dead]

WeylandYutani 4y ago

Pirates win again.

nine_k 4y ago
An ethical pirate buys an official copy to support the creators, but uses a ripped copy because it's not only convenient but permanent.
- account42 4y ago
  Is it really ethical to reward abusive business practices?
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Is it worth supporting the creator here? When the creator is just a company that owns the work of another and treats their customer in this fashion?
  - smugma 4y ago
    A company that owns the work of another is not a creator. The moral rights (droits moraux), which include the right of attribution, sit with the creator and are not transferable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
  - nine_k 4y ago
    It depends. But usually smaller musical labels, or smaller publishing houses, or even large Hollywood studios directly relate to the creators, and share profits with them. Buying directly from creators is great when available, and usually the resulting file is unencumbered enough so that pirating it just makes no sense. (This is why most money I spent on music pass through Bandcamp.)
- justjonathan 4y ago
  That’s a lot of trouble, more than straight piracy and more than straight commercial “purchase”. That seems an unreasonable burden to impose on normal people.

_siis 4y ago

That's not how it should be though. Its a direct attack on property rights which are a cornerstone of most successful civilizations.

bjowen 4y ago
Yes. You might call the emergence of ownership that is contingent on the whims of a megacorporation rent-seeking.