4 ms·

The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Considering the tragedies around land ownership in the past of the Americas, I would expec

The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Considering the tragedies around land ownership in the past of the Americas, I would expect a very sophisticated view on the matter. To "own" something because you "bought" it, is all such a virtual affair. The thing that matters is that the artist or studio that made this possible, is able to survive and will prosper because they make this thing that is liked by their customers. Everything else I consider side-effects (and no I am not an artist myself). Moreover, I hope these discussion will disappear in the future, because we enter a more and more interconnected world. In the case of Spotify, it is logical that you pay for their service, DRM does not have anything to do with it. The more software is provided to the customer as online services, the more transparent its use can be regulated. The point of software is often just its functionality, not its physical representation in the form of machine code that can subsequently be copied. Ownership of a car doesn't entail blueprints so you can 3D print another one, or a free subscription to fuel, and even changes to your own car are heavily regulated. I like reverse engineering stuff, but I don't think we have the right to tell people or companies that hand us over stuff in exchange for money to tell them what this exactly has to entail.

blaabjerg 14y ago
I would think this petition is in response to the Sim City debacle. When people buy a game they want to be able to play it as much as they like, and EA is not going to keep running their SimCity server infrastructure forever. To borrow your car example: If I buy a new car and the manufacturer retains full control over how long I'll be able to keep using said car, I'm not really buying it, am I? I'm leasing it. Spotify doesn't really fit, because you're paying a monthly fee, not a one time lump sum. (This may have been your point.)
snarfy 14y ago
>I like reverse engineering stuff, but I don't think we have the right to tell people or companies that hand us over stuff in exchange for money to tell them what this exactly has to entail. Sure we do. That's what regulation is all about. When someone sells me a hotdog, I have the expectation that it does not contain sawdust as a filler. When I buy a beef meat pie, I do not expect it to contain horse meat. When I buy something which is sold shrink wrapped in a box in a retail store, the expectation is that it is a copy of a copyrighted material, the same as any other media. Instead you are buying into a contractual obligation. Selling contractual obligations is not wrong, but selling them under the guise they are also copyrighted goods is fraudulent at best. Make people sign the EULA. No more click-throughs. That's the regulation I want. Companies are taking advantage of consumers lack of legal expertise and it's something government is supposed to protect us against.
drucken 14y ago
The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Oddly enough, as a European (EU), you enjoy far more protections for ownership of products, including digital and reselling DRM-limited products, than any North American.

blaabjerg 14y ago

I would think this petition is in response to the Sim City debacle. When people buy a game they want to be able to play it as much as they like, and EA is not going to keep running their SimCity server infrastructure forever. To borrow your car example: If I buy a new car and the manufacturer retains full control over how long I'll be able to keep using said car, I'm not really buying it, am I? I'm leasing it. Spotify doesn't really fit, because you're paying a monthly fee, not a one time lump sum. (This may have been your point.)

snarfy 14y ago

>I like reverse engineering stuff, but I don't think we have the right to tell people or companies that hand us over stuff in exchange for money to tell them what this exactly has to entail. Sure we do. That's what regulation is all about. When someone sells me a hotdog, I have the expectation that it does not contain sawdust as a filler. When I buy a beef meat pie, I do not expect it to contain horse meat. When I buy something which is sold shrink wrapped in a box in a retail store, the expectation is that it is a copy of a copyrighted material, the same as any other media. Instead you are buying into a contractual obligation. Selling contractual obligations is not wrong, but selling them under the guise they are also copyrighted goods is fraudulent at best. Make people sign the EULA. No more click-throughs. That's the regulation I want. Companies are taking advantage of consumers lack of legal expertise and it's something government is supposed to protect us against.

drucken 14y ago

The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Oddly enough, as a European (EU), you enjoy far more protections for ownership of products, including digital and reselling DRM-limited products, than any North American.