4 ms·
Is this not also true with, say, a VHS tape? In what sense do you "own" it? You aren't legally allowed to copy it or whatever. It's still just a license.
by wilg 3y ago
Is this not also true with, say, a VHS tape? In what sense do you "own" it? You aren't legally allowed to copy it or whatever. It's still just a license.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoYou're allowed to copy a VHS tape, you're just not allowed to distribute copies of VHS tapes. You still own the physical tape itself, and you have a perpetual right to play, copy, and modify the tape as much as you like, for personal use.
- wilg 3y agoMy point is that in a physical tape you still only own a license of the content. This is a slightly less restrictive license than digital DRM, and is governed by copyright law, but is still a license.
- Daneel_ 3y agoOf course you can copy it. You just can’t sell that copy to someone else while keeping your own copy too. That’s copyright infringement. I’m not sure what you’re on about with “license” in this context. You own the VHS. Do with it what you like.
- wilg 3y agoThere are tons of things you can't do with it. You can't exhibit it publicly. You don't own the movie on the tape! You just own a tape. I am refuting the original poster's claim that "With DRM you never purchase _content_. You only purchase a _license_ to access it." This is true, but is meant to imply there is an alternative. There isn't, a you only have a license to the content in all cases, including DRM-free physical media.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoOk, your original post was ambiguous then because you didn't talk about content at all, you talked about "in what sense do you own [A VHS]", so people explained how owning a VHS is different from licensing digital media. Mostly that your license to the content of a VHS cannot be revoked arbitrarily after you purchase the VHS itself.
- wilg 3y agoI suppose. But the original post also omitted this distinction. I’ll add that the same inability to revoke also applies to digital media with no DRM.
- dehrmann 3y ago> for personal use This is why it's still a license. Public performances are explicitly forbidden. So it's still not "yours."
- behringer 3y agoThat's not a license. That's a law. Laws are not licenses.
- njharman 3y agoGo learn about land mark Universal vs Sony time shifting and RIAA v Diamond space shifting copyright cases. Or, at very least stop spreading misinformation.
- wilg 3y agoHow unhelpful!