5 ms·

Ownership isn’t fuzzy though, it has a clear definition. The problem is that clear definition makes pirates angry because they want it to mean something other t

• mantas 3y ago
  Playstation users did „purchase“ that content. Is that enough for a claim or not?
  • c0pium 3y ago
    Purchasing a license is not the same as purchasing the thing, and everyone knows that. It’s not 1997 anymore. Whether they have an enforceable claim to access the content depends on the terms of their license, and while I haven’t read it I think we all know they won’t.
    • mantas 3y ago
      Purchasing a rent license! Yay for newspeak. Rent is rent, purchase is purchase. Hey, we ended contract with the store were you bought your DVDs. Please return them.
      • c0pium 3y ago
        Please, please let me know before you fly next. I cannot wait to hear you explain to the gate agent that you purchased a ticket so legally the plane is now yours.
        • mantas 3y ago
          The better example would be when I'm kicked out from am over-sold flight. The difference would be that airlines usually make up for it. Meanwhile in this case „purchased“ stuff is gone for good. No refunds or transfer of purchases to Warner's platform.
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
          • c0pium 3y ago
            This is a really great example of trying to use outrage to distract from the fact that you’re not addressing the point you’re allegedly replying to. You got stuck because you didn’t understand the implications of the original hot take you had. It’s ok, it happens.
            • mantas 3y ago
              I’m still addressing the same point. You purchase something and then it’s taken away from you without any sort of compensation.
              • c0pium 3y ago
                You are willfully ignoring the part you don’t like and hoping it will go away.
• chownie 3y ago
  Is the point you're getting at that no one owns anything digitally?
  • c0pium 3y ago
    No, my point is about whether ownership has a clear definition or not. It does. This is separate from whether or not we like the way the system works for licensing content, and it’s important that people not muddy the waters here.
    • at_a_remove 3y ago
      I think Playstation is doing the muddying. Did people "buy" something? Was that the word used? If so, shouldn't they have an expectation of "ownership"? If so, then Playstation has destroyed or stolen someone's property. That's why I wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of "What does to mean to own something?" because it appears that there are various groups, not just pirates, who would like to impose their own definitions, just as the RIAA attempted to state that copying was equal to theft, despite copying not depriving anyone else of the use and enjoyment of the original property.
      • c0pium 3y ago
        > I think Playstation is doing the muddying You are certainly welcome to your opinion. This is how the industry has worked for decades at this point though, so it’s hard to argue that the people doing the standard thing with the standard words are the ones creating confusion. Yes, they bought a license. They own a license, which means they own the ability to exercise the rights included with that license under the terms and exclusions included in the license. Sony lawyers know what they’re about, you’re welcome to go read the license to find out exactly how they worded their claims about giving you access to material owned by Discovery.
        • at_a_remove 3y ago
          In a way, I'm glad you disagree with me, it proves my original point that "buy" and "owns" have become terms where differing parties can't seem to agree on what they imply, and so we need to be more specific about it.
• freejazz 3y ago
  No, ownership doesn't have a clear definition. You can own all sorts of interests in real property or personal property which fall short of the whole.
  • c0pium 3y ago
    All of which, as I said, provide an enforceable claim against those things.
    • freejazz 3y ago
      Claim of what though? If my claim is for real property, but with a reversion, and the reversion is triggered, I have no claim left...
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • c0pium 3y ago
        Reversions are a common clause in leases, which nobody would call ownership. It’s certainly the case that the word could be viewed to have a confusing meaning if it’s misused in situations where it obviously doesn’t apply. You can own a partial stake in something, either real or not, and have an enforceable claim which is to less than total control or subject to conditions. You can also have a purchase a contract which provides access or use in some way but isn’t ownership. The latter is very common digitally and is the subject of this thread.
        • freejazz 3y ago
          "If you have an enforceable claim on something, then you own it. If your claim is not enforceable then you possess it." Let me repeat myself for clarity. You can own a property with a reversion. You can own a leashold with a reversion. They are both enforceable claims. You can exclude people for the term of your lease. How is that not an enforceable claim? You said an enforceable claim means ownership. I think you were mistaken in saying because it's not true. Now you are caveating it to portions of a whole. But a leasehold is for the entirety, just for a term.