7 ms·

This is where the US Federal Gov should step in. But the pols are too busy counting donations (bribes) from these companies. If I buy digital content, I shoul

by jmclnx 3y ago

This is where the US Federal Gov should step in. But the pols are too busy counting donations (bribes) from these companies. If I buy digital content, I should be able to download it on removal media and use it off-line (esp. in the case with movies/music). I should be able to sell it (which is still legal). But these companies want you to "rent" instead of own. So I never buy digital anything. No wonder many people head to pirate bay because of the rights they loose. I hope the US Gov (and other govs) wake up to this, but as always donations (bribes) trumps people's rights all the time. (no pun intended).

Swizec 3y ago
> This is where the US Federal Gov should step in. But the pols are too busy counting donations (bribes) from these companies. Freakonomics once asked a corruption researcher who is more corrupt, China or America? She said: Well in America you can't really call it corruption if it's legal. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corrupt-than-china/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corr...
- gruez 3y ago
  >Freakonomics once asked a corruption researcher who is more corrupt, China or America? She said: Well in America you can't really call it corruption if it's legal. Are we reading the same article? >ANG: So if we compare it to the standard index, the similarity that we see is that the United States, overall, total corruption is much lower than in China, and that’s totally expected. But what the U.C.I. is able to add is that it unbundles this total score into four categories, and by doing so, we can see more nuance and we can see that first of all, in both countries, the United States is much lower on petty theft, grand theft, and speed money than in China. But they have roughly the same amount of access money.
  - Swizec 3y ago
    From the 2nd paragraph at top: > ANG: I think it’s more complicated in this country. Corruption in China is still of an illegal form. But corruption in this country has become so legalized and institutionalized, it’s hard to say that it’s “corrupt.” Some people would be really offended by the word.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
The government should forbid the labeling of “buy” or “purchase” of anything that can be revoked after the sale. If it can be revoked, then it should be labeled “rent”, with the appropriate time frame. Even if it means businesses have to label it “rent - until an unknown time in the future when we go out of business or drop the license or decide to ban you”.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  And it is not like they would not know the first possible date when the license ends. This should be at the sale page and displayed prominently.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  "Rent" is the wrong word. But so is "buy"
  - _trampeltier 3y ago
    "Licence" a product
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    I'd go with "Rent Indefinitely"
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      "Indefinitely" is a vague term. I'm serious - if we really want the FTC or some other more appropriate agency to step in and force a change in terminology, we must have something that is very clear and precise. Otherwise it would never survive a legal challenge.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        Why is it a problem that it's a vague term? It's defining a vague clause in the contract. You get certain rights until such time as the company decides you don't get them anymore.
onion2k 3y ago
If I buy digital content... You can do all that when you buy digital content. The problem is that most stores aren't selling you the content - they're selling you a non-perpetual license to access the content while it's available from the store you bought it from. That's what needs to change. People need to actually buy the content and not rent it.
- nix0n 3y ago
  > most stores aren't selling you the content Yes they are, the stores are just not delivering on what they're selling. > People need to actually buy the content People are buying the content, then discovering that they no longer have it. This is actually the sort of thing that a properly-functioning consumer defense bureau would go after.
fishtacos 3y ago
I'll allow Steam's platform a little room here, but not too much. They've been reliable since 2003, with the promise of backing up games to play offline if the service goes the way of Athenian gods. However, to your point, I'll easily find my way to (insert a random pirate site - non-disclosed) download something that I own just because it's ONLY available exclusively through a platform like EA Play or Ubisoft. GOG's Galaxy platform is what I wish all gaming platforms to be. I'm getting too old to care about such nuisances, but would like to think that preservation of any game (rather written: any software) culminates into preservation of DRM-free archives.
- everdrive 3y ago
  I love and stand by Steam, but all that needs to happen is that Gabe Newell retires, or the company is purchased. Once that happens, kiss it all goodbye. (And probably also kiss awesome Linux compatibility goodbye as well.)
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    Upside is, they'll probably make halflife3 when any of that happens
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Do you think a good game is likely to be made under those circumstances?
      - e2le 3y ago
        I hope by the time he's ready to retire, there'll be an AI replica ready to take his place.
        unsui 3y ago
        brought to you by GabeN-vidia
      - 3y ago
fredgrott 3y ago
But you are not buying ANY digital content, read the damn TOS! you only lease digital content not buy... Do you not think companies were smart enough to plan for this??
everdrive 3y ago
It’s for this reason that I only rent on Amazon. ˜$2-$5 feels pretty reasonable to me, and I know I’m not owning it. I generally don’t buy any content with DRM in it, since I know I haven’t really purchased it. It doesn’t seem like consumers are very interested actual digital ownership, and smartphones tend to push the boundary even further here. It’s not impossible to put your own digital files on a smart phone and view them, but it seems significantly more difficult and annoying than doing the same on a personal computer. I believe smart phones and embedded devices (smart TVs, Rokus, etc) are doing a lot to set the “rental-only” expectation with consumers. Many consumers may have never experienced a real digital alternative to “rental-only."
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > It’s not impossible to put your own digital files on a smart phone and view them, but it seems significantly more difficult and annoying than doing the same on a personal computer. Plex. It's an app. And you don't even have to put the files on the phone... you just stream to the phone from hardware at home. Problem's already been solved on the technology end of it.
  - everdrive 3y ago
    I'm not saying that _I_ can't manage to do it. But I want it to be as easy as it is on a computer. Plug in a USB, navigate the file system. Drop the files where I want. I don't want to set up a streaming server in my house just because smart phones are terrible.
autokad 3y ago
are you kidding? the government LOVES this. Now they can also tell companies to block your content and all of your purchases with the flick of a switch. Say something the US government doesnt like, and all of those youtube movie purchases are gone with 1 ban.

by jmclnx 3y ago

Swizec 3y ago

> This is where the US Federal Gov should step in. But the pols are too busy counting donations (bribes) from these companies. Freakonomics once asked a corruption researcher who is more corrupt, China or America? She said: Well in America you can't really call it corruption if it's legal. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corrupt-than-china/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corr...

gruez 3y ago
>Freakonomics once asked a corruption researcher who is more corrupt, China or America? She said: Well in America you can't really call it corruption if it's legal. Are we reading the same article? >ANG: So if we compare it to the standard index, the similarity that we see is that the United States, overall, total corruption is much lower than in China, and that’s totally expected. But what the U.C.I. is able to add is that it unbundles this total score into four categories, and by doing so, we can see more nuance and we can see that first of all, in both countries, the United States is much lower on petty theft, grand theft, and speed money than in China. But they have roughly the same amount of access money.
- Swizec 3y ago
  From the 2nd paragraph at top: > ANG: I think it’s more complicated in this country. Corruption in China is still of an illegal form. But corruption in this country has become so legalized and institutionalized, it’s hard to say that it’s “corrupt.” Some people would be really offended by the word.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

The government should forbid the labeling of “buy” or “purchase” of anything that can be revoked after the sale. If it can be revoked, then it should be labeled “rent”, with the appropriate time frame. Even if it means businesses have to label it “rent - until an unknown time in the future when we go out of business or drop the license or decide to ban you”.

Ekaros 3y ago
And it is not like they would not know the first possible date when the license ends. This should be at the sale page and displayed prominently.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
"Rent" is the wrong word. But so is "buy"
- _trampeltier 3y ago
  "Licence" a product
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  I'd go with "Rent Indefinitely"
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    "Indefinitely" is a vague term. I'm serious - if we really want the FTC or some other more appropriate agency to step in and force a change in terminology, we must have something that is very clear and precise. Otherwise it would never survive a legal challenge.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      Why is it a problem that it's a vague term? It's defining a vague clause in the contract. You get certain rights until such time as the company decides you don't get them anymore.

onion2k 3y ago

If I buy digital content... You can do all that when you buy digital content. The problem is that most stores aren't selling you the content - they're selling you a non-perpetual license to access the content while it's available from the store you bought it from. That's what needs to change. People need to actually buy the content and not rent it.

nix0n 3y ago
> most stores aren't selling you the content Yes they are, the stores are just not delivering on what they're selling. > People need to actually buy the content People are buying the content, then discovering that they no longer have it. This is actually the sort of thing that a properly-functioning consumer defense bureau would go after.

fishtacos 3y ago

I'll allow Steam's platform a little room here, but not too much. They've been reliable since 2003, with the promise of backing up games to play offline if the service goes the way of Athenian gods. However, to your point, I'll easily find my way to (insert a random pirate site - non-disclosed) download something that I own just because it's ONLY available exclusively through a platform like EA Play or Ubisoft. GOG's Galaxy platform is what I wish all gaming platforms to be. I'm getting too old to care about such nuisances, but would like to think that preservation of any game (rather written: any software) culminates into preservation of DRM-free archives.

everdrive 3y ago
I love and stand by Steam, but all that needs to happen is that Gabe Newell retires, or the company is purchased. Once that happens, kiss it all goodbye. (And probably also kiss awesome Linux compatibility goodbye as well.)
- jtriangle 3y ago
  Upside is, they'll probably make halflife3 when any of that happens
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Do you think a good game is likely to be made under those circumstances?
    - e2le 3y ago
      I hope by the time he's ready to retire, there'll be an AI replica ready to take his place.
      - unsui 3y ago
        brought to you by GabeN-vidia
    - 3y ago

fredgrott 3y ago

But you are not buying ANY digital content, read the damn TOS! you only lease digital content not buy... Do you not think companies were smart enough to plan for this??

everdrive 3y ago

It’s for this reason that I only rent on Amazon. ˜$2-$5 feels pretty reasonable to me, and I know I’m not owning it. I generally don’t buy any content with DRM in it, since I know I haven’t really purchased it. It doesn’t seem like consumers are very interested actual digital ownership, and smartphones tend to push the boundary even further here. It’s not impossible to put your own digital files on a smart phone and view them, but it seems significantly more difficult and annoying than doing the same on a personal computer. I believe smart phones and embedded devices (smart TVs, Rokus, etc) are doing a lot to set the “rental-only” expectation with consumers. Many consumers may have never experienced a real digital alternative to “rental-only."

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> It’s not impossible to put your own digital files on a smart phone and view them, but it seems significantly more difficult and annoying than doing the same on a personal computer. Plex. It's an app. And you don't even have to put the files on the phone... you just stream to the phone from hardware at home. Problem's already been solved on the technology end of it.
- everdrive 3y ago
  I'm not saying that _I_ can't manage to do it. But I want it to be as easy as it is on a computer. Plug in a USB, navigate the file system. Drop the files where I want. I don't want to set up a streaming server in my house just because smart phones are terrible.

autokad 3y ago

are you kidding? the government LOVES this. Now they can also tell companies to block your content and all of your purchases with the flick of a switch. Say something the US government doesnt like, and all of those youtube movie purchases are gone with 1 ban.