5 ms·

The way the law is currently structured, there is no such thing as digital ownership, only licensing. And since there is an enormous disparity in negotiating po

The way the law is currently structured, there is no such thing as digital ownership, only licensing. And since there is an enormous disparity in negotiating power between consumers and massive copyright owners, the prevailing licensing terms overwhelmingly favor the copyright holders. The solution is to change the law. But the disparity in power between corporate copyright holders and consumers manifests itself in politics just as it does in the market.

alistairSH 3y ago
From Sony's website... As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library. Note the use of "purchased" (not "licensed"). To a layman, purchased means "I bought the thing" not "I bought an ephermeral license to the thing". US consumer protection law sucks goat ass - language around digital content licensing could easily be "fixed" (but won't because our government is a revolving door with industry insiders).
- vannevar 3y ago
  Yeah, they definitely pretend you've purchased the content. But you've only purchased a license, and even the license is so weak that it effectively says "you can use this as long as we arbitrarily decide you can, and we can take your license away at any time without refunding your money." So you're not really buying anything at all.
- mfer 3y ago
  Polls have found that the average person in the US can't tell you many of the basics of how their government works. The laws aren't based on people taking the time to understand them. It is complex enough there really isn't the time. Especially if you spend the average amount of time staring at rectangle screens. "our government is a revolving door with industry insiders" ... this is partly due to government compensation compared to the free market and our present desire for those with the ability to navigate this complexity to want to make piles of money. It's all about the benjamins. Which is also why IP holders use the law the way they do.
- freejazz 3y ago
  You can "purchase" a "license". In fact, what else would you call the exchange of monetary value for a license?
  - Joeri 3y ago
    If the license expires I would call it a rental. For me if DRM is involved it is always a rental, license or no, as I am left unable to legally keep an archival copy to retain access to the purchased item beyond the undisclosed access window.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >If the license expires I would call it a rental. A license is a license. They don't have to expire either. I can sell a perpetual license to something. > For me if DRM is involved it is always a rental, license or no, as I am left unable to legally keep an archival copy to retain access to the purchased item beyond the undisclosed access window. Call it whatever you want. The correct term is a license. You were licensed something in accordance with a bunch of terms that may have included, for example, DRM. It's a license to use the good in accordance with the terms of the license. Why confuse things?
      - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
        > Why confuse things? That's...exactly the issue at hand. These companies are not doing much, if anything, to educate their customers on the difference between purchasing a license and purchasing the thing itself. This is, of course, deliberate.
        ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        The problem here is, that it shouldnt even be labeled as "purchase" (well, "buy" usually), but "rent". Purchasing a licence to rent the content is weasel wording around stuff that is well known and consumers expect it to work in a certain way (eg. buying a dvd or renting a dvd, where in the first case you actually own the dvd, and in the second, you know that they expect you to return it after some time). In every other business, "buy" means "buy", buy a dvd, buy a sandwich, buy a car, buy this, buy that... nowhere else are you expected to return the item (at least not without a refund, eg. in case of a recall).
freejazz 3y ago
Nothign about the law precludes you from owning anything digitally. I can sell you a digital copy of a photograph, giving you the copyright and everything. No need for a license. What makes you think otherwise?
- vannevar 3y ago
  You've answered your own question here. It's not so much about what precludes you from selling something digitally, as it is about what precludes that person from simply making copies and distributing them for the marginal compute cost plus some profit. The answer is copyright law, which has been steadily strengthened over the years in response to the lobbying of corporate copyright holders. In order to sell even one digital copy to another person, they'd have to buy the copyright from you. And why would you sell the copyright to them when you can leverage it to sell licenses instead? Agreed that I should've said "there is no such thing as digital ownership in practice", at least for consumers.

alistairSH 3y ago

From Sony's website... As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library. Note the use of "purchased" (not "licensed"). To a layman, purchased means "I bought the thing" not "I bought an ephermeral license to the thing". US consumer protection law sucks goat ass - language around digital content licensing could easily be "fixed" (but won't because our government is a revolving door with industry insiders).

vannevar 3y ago
Yeah, they definitely pretend you've purchased the content. But you've only purchased a license, and even the license is so weak that it effectively says "you can use this as long as we arbitrarily decide you can, and we can take your license away at any time without refunding your money." So you're not really buying anything at all.
mfer 3y ago
Polls have found that the average person in the US can't tell you many of the basics of how their government works. The laws aren't based on people taking the time to understand them. It is complex enough there really isn't the time. Especially if you spend the average amount of time staring at rectangle screens. "our government is a revolving door with industry insiders" ... this is partly due to government compensation compared to the free market and our present desire for those with the ability to navigate this complexity to want to make piles of money. It's all about the benjamins. Which is also why IP holders use the law the way they do.
freejazz 3y ago
You can "purchase" a "license". In fact, what else would you call the exchange of monetary value for a license?
- Joeri 3y ago
  If the license expires I would call it a rental. For me if DRM is involved it is always a rental, license or no, as I am left unable to legally keep an archival copy to retain access to the purchased item beyond the undisclosed access window.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >If the license expires I would call it a rental. A license is a license. They don't have to expire either. I can sell a perpetual license to something. > For me if DRM is involved it is always a rental, license or no, as I am left unable to legally keep an archival copy to retain access to the purchased item beyond the undisclosed access window. Call it whatever you want. The correct term is a license. You were licensed something in accordance with a bunch of terms that may have included, for example, DRM. It's a license to use the good in accordance with the terms of the license. Why confuse things?
    - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
      > Why confuse things? That's...exactly the issue at hand. These companies are not doing much, if anything, to educate their customers on the difference between purchasing a license and purchasing the thing itself. This is, of course, deliberate.
      - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        The problem here is, that it shouldnt even be labeled as "purchase" (well, "buy" usually), but "rent". Purchasing a licence to rent the content is weasel wording around stuff that is well known and consumers expect it to work in a certain way (eg. buying a dvd or renting a dvd, where in the first case you actually own the dvd, and in the second, you know that they expect you to return it after some time). In every other business, "buy" means "buy", buy a dvd, buy a sandwich, buy a car, buy this, buy that... nowhere else are you expected to return the item (at least not without a refund, eg. in case of a recall).

freejazz 3y ago

Nothign about the law precludes you from owning anything digitally. I can sell you a digital copy of a photograph, giving you the copyright and everything. No need for a license. What makes you think otherwise?

vannevar 3y ago
You've answered your own question here. It's not so much about what precludes you from selling something digitally, as it is about what precludes that person from simply making copies and distributing them for the marginal compute cost plus some profit. The answer is copyright law, which has been steadily strengthened over the years in response to the lobbying of corporate copyright holders. In order to sell even one digital copy to another person, they'd have to buy the copyright from you. And why would you sell the copyright to them when you can leverage it to sell licenses instead? Agreed that I should've said "there is no such thing as digital ownership in practice", at least for consumers.