4 ms·

What you’re buying is the right to consume someone’s hard work in quasi-perpetuity[1]. It’s not a tangible object, but it’s not nothing, either. That’s the esse

What you’re buying is the right to consume someone’s hard work in quasi-perpetuity[1]. It’s not a tangible object, but it’s not nothing, either. That’s the essence of “intellectual property.” Most HNers are employed building things that their customers will never have tangible representations of. It’s how life is today. [1] technological or business limitations make promises of true perpetuity impossible as a practical matter today.

NilMostChill 2y ago
The difference is most of those things aren't built with tangible, perpetual representations in mind. For literally all of the time that the written word has existed, if you bought a physical copy it was yours for whatever version of perpetuity you'd like to use. Of course libraries exist, as do rentals, but it's clearly understood what the deal is with such services. The specific issue i see here is that this is changing retroactively and without recourse, the ability to download a copy of the item you purchased, which was the deal at the time of purchase. If you buy anything from now on, however, knowing the details of the sale, that's on you.
- tw04 2y ago
  It is also hopefully going to result in people going back to libraries. If Amazon is telling you that you can never own an ebook, why pay for it at all? Just borrow it from the local library for free.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I feel like the average person isn't going to think through the implications, or won't care, and will continue buying Kindle books. I wish more people were on the same page (heh) as us here when it comes to licensing vs. ownership, but I just don't believe that's the case.
poisonborz 2y ago
I never got this. Software is stored, bytes are a physicality, just more easily distributeable. They even have some measurable weight theoretically, with a similar attributed value like an artwork or book - that is subjective and hard to interpret.
- otterley 2y ago
  It’s not the mass that matters. It’s the medium. You only own the medium, not the content. This was true of physical media (books, phonographs, etc.) and is true of downloaded media. You might own a paper copy of your favorite book, but you don’t own its words, and the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. If the book is destroyed in a fire, you must buy a new copy. Similarly, you might own your Kindle, but you don’t own the content in it. You can read the content, but you can’t copy it.But there’s a minor advantage of a digital license: if your Kindle is destroyed in a fire, the publisher allows you to read-download the content to a new device.
  - LocalH 2y ago
    > the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. In theory, the law only applies to distribution. Also, fair use and fair dealing exist in multiple jurisdictions, which includes personal-only usage. A company would have a hard time achieving a legal judgement against you for the mere act of copying a book. Distributing it? Sure. Copyright law explicitly allows for backups, at least in the US, which is where most of the companies exhibiting this anti-ownership behavior are located and thus bound by US law, especially when the consumer is also US. Owning a license means nothing when the other party to the license can revoke it at any time without further consideration.
    - otterley 2y ago
      As someone who holds an IP certificate and JD diploma from a respected law school, I can tell you that most of what you’re saying is utterly false. There are some exceptions carved out by the Library of Congress to the DMCA, but I would advise you to educate yourself before posting further on the subject. You’re right that violation doesn’t necessarily lead to prosecution and liability—people break the law all the time without being prosecuted for it—but nevertheless, you risk getting yourself into hot water if you violate another’s rights.
hardlianotion 2y ago
Unfortunately, with books you are able to compare the cost of temporarily getting access to a file with being able to own its paper equivalent.
account42 2y ago
Copyrightdoes not and according to the US constitution can never last forever. You have already have the right for most of that perpetuity.
- otterley 2y ago
  Once the copyright expires, yes, the work falls into the public domain. But this fact is moot for the purpose of this discussion, because we're talking about (usually) relatively new copyrighted works that will be subject to protection for many, many years.

NilMostChill 2y ago

The difference is most of those things aren't built with tangible, perpetual representations in mind. For literally all of the time that the written word has existed, if you bought a physical copy it was yours for whatever version of perpetuity you'd like to use. Of course libraries exist, as do rentals, but it's clearly understood what the deal is with such services. The specific issue i see here is that this is changing retroactively and without recourse, the ability to download a copy of the item you purchased, which was the deal at the time of purchase. If you buy anything from now on, however, knowing the details of the sale, that's on you.

tw04 2y ago
It is also hopefully going to result in people going back to libraries. If Amazon is telling you that you can never own an ebook, why pay for it at all? Just borrow it from the local library for free.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I feel like the average person isn't going to think through the implications, or won't care, and will continue buying Kindle books. I wish more people were on the same page (heh) as us here when it comes to licensing vs. ownership, but I just don't believe that's the case.

poisonborz 2y ago

I never got this. Software is stored, bytes are a physicality, just more easily distributeable. They even have some measurable weight theoretically, with a similar attributed value like an artwork or book - that is subjective and hard to interpret.

otterley 2y ago
It’s not the mass that matters. It’s the medium. You only own the medium, not the content. This was true of physical media (books, phonographs, etc.) and is true of downloaded media. You might own a paper copy of your favorite book, but you don’t own its words, and the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. If the book is destroyed in a fire, you must buy a new copy. Similarly, you might own your Kindle, but you don’t own the content in it. You can read the content, but you can’t copy it.But there’s a minor advantage of a digital license: if your Kindle is destroyed in a fire, the publisher allows you to read-download the content to a new device.
- LocalH 2y ago
  > the law prohibits you from making a copy without the owner’s permission. You can transfer the medium to someone else, but you can’t preserve the content for yourself. In theory, the law only applies to distribution. Also, fair use and fair dealing exist in multiple jurisdictions, which includes personal-only usage. A company would have a hard time achieving a legal judgement against you for the mere act of copying a book. Distributing it? Sure. Copyright law explicitly allows for backups, at least in the US, which is where most of the companies exhibiting this anti-ownership behavior are located and thus bound by US law, especially when the consumer is also US. Owning a license means nothing when the other party to the license can revoke it at any time without further consideration.
  - otterley 2y ago
    As someone who holds an IP certificate and JD diploma from a respected law school, I can tell you that most of what you’re saying is utterly false. There are some exceptions carved out by the Library of Congress to the DMCA, but I would advise you to educate yourself before posting further on the subject. You’re right that violation doesn’t necessarily lead to prosecution and liability—people break the law all the time without being prosecuted for it—but nevertheless, you risk getting yourself into hot water if you violate another’s rights.

hardlianotion 2y ago

Unfortunately, with books you are able to compare the cost of temporarily getting access to a file with being able to own its paper equivalent.

account42 2y ago

Copyrightdoes not and according to the US constitution can never last forever. You have already have the right for most of that perpetuity.

otterley 2y ago
Once the copyright expires, yes, the work falls into the public domain. But this fact is moot for the purpose of this discussion, because we're talking about (usually) relatively new copyrighted works that will be subject to protection for many, many years.