this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
772 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
59308 readers
5400 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, what you describe is called "Rent" or "Lease". People who press a "Buy" button and buy something, expect to own it. Words have a meaning, and trying to wiggle around this with fine print should be considered fraudulent.
People are buying something - a revocable license to view content through the service. Look at the T&Cs of any of these services and it'll say as much within that wall of text.
Hence why I advocate for digital property, a token of ownership and rights that go with it.
If I give you the impression that you buy a gold bar, but in reality you get a cheap gold plated metal bar, then that is fraud. It doesn't matter if it looks and feel the same.
That may be but it's what these services are doing and will continue to do until lawmakers enact digital property laws along the lines that I suggest.
Copyright is literally the definition of “who has the rights to determine how copies are made.” If you were to believe most people who publish content on YouTube, you might think that copyright means authorship, but it does not.
When you purchase a movie on Blu-ray, you don’t own the film. You own a piece of plastic which represents a license to watch the film. But you can’t turn around, make copies, and start selling those copies without violating The film studios “right to determine how copies are made.“
The only difference between a physical Blu-ray (license) and a digital license is that digital license is revocable. It’s not fair. It isn’t just. But it’s literally part of the contract that you agreed to.
There’s a separate discussion to be had around “fair use.” Backing up stuff that you have paid money for does fall into “fair use,“ unless third-party encryption is involved. Because it is against the law to circumvent encryption. (Unless, of course, you’re the FBI.)
This is the only characteristic that separates ripping CDs from ripping DVDs — CDs missed the boat on encryption.
I’m not necessarily arguing for or against anything here other than to simply explain how it currently works (in the US, at least). There’s a separate discussion to be had about perpetual versus revocable licenses after money has been exchanged. Beyond that, there’s a discussion to be about how to protect the intellectual property of the things that you spent millions of dollars creating; and how that fares with the consumers of said intellectual property.
These latter discussions are far more nuanced than most Internet commenters are qualified to decide.
I can sell a disk to whoever I want. I can lend my disk to a friend. I can play my disk in any player I want. Heck, I'm even allowed to crack the copy right on the disk if that is needed to play it on my device. I have the right to backup my disk to a hard drive.
Don't pretend Buying a movie online is anything close to buying it on a physical medium. It doesn't make you look good.
I never said anything about copyright giving you right to copy movies. But if I own a CD, blu-ray or a book, I physically OWN that blu-ray or book. I can stick it on a shelf, lend it to someone, give it away, burn it, sell it on e-bay. It doesn't entitle me to duplicate it, but the media is mine, as is my right of ownership in law.
Conversely if I buy a digital movie on Amazon (or any other provider) I've bought a license to it. Next time I go view it, the movie might have gone. Or maybe Amazon just shitcans the entire service (as it has before). Or maybe they just decide to ban my account for whatever reason. Or maybe they don't like that I've moved to another continent. Whatever the reason I have no recourse. Nor can I sell my license, lend it, or anything else.
That's the problem I'm talking about. There is no reason that when I buy a movie from Amazon or another provider it has to be this way. Instead I should buy the movie, and have a copy of movie and a token that shows my ownership of it. They can watermark the mkv to bind it to the token and me and copyright holders might come after me if I unlawfully share the file. But I should be able to sell my copy if I want. I should be able to borrow a copy from a digital library. I should be able to do things equivalent to a physical copy.
I would have more sympathy for that argument if the same was applied to the government regulating land and taxes. It ain't your land or your money, you have it on lease from the government so stop bitching and render unto Caesar.
No, he’s right. You are buying something, but what you’re missing is that you’re not buying the content itself. You’re buying the right to access the content for an indeterminate amount of time. You’re not renting in the same way that buying a movie ticket isn’t renting. The thing you’re buying is just inherently temporary, and that’s the problem.
It's not "buy" by itself, it's "buy a film" or "buy a TV series".
The word "buy" followed by the name of a service (say, "access to films") can indeed carry the meaning you describe (so in that example "buy access to films" is the same as "renting films") even if it is an unusual wording, however when the word "buy" is followed by the name of a good, not a service, (i.e. "buy a film") it is interpreted in trade, legal and common terms as acquiring ownership rights to that good.
Granted, IP law is a big bloody mess and Consumer Rights in places like the US are pretty much Fuck-You-Plebe, so legally in the US who knows what levels of misleading contractual terms and one-sided post-sale of imposition of new contractual terms via EULAs towards retail customers are legal, but in both common usage and trade, in pretty much all areas but those covered by IP Law, "buy a good" means buying a product, which is something else altogether than "buy temporary access to a good" which is the meaning Sony is using.
Generally in Consumer Law, these things tend to boil down to whether a normal individual with no legal expertise could be reasonably expected to understand the terms of the contract with the meaning Sony claims or not, though in the US, with the kind of Consumer Protection laws it has, run-of-the-mill (not rich, not lawyers or judges) consumers are most likely legally fucked, de facto and quite possibly de jure
Thats why you’ll never see “The word buy followed by the name of a good”. In fact, you probably won’t even see the word “buy”. Most commonly you’ll see “add to cart” and then “check out”. Which are coincidentally the same words you’ll see when buying a movie ticket.
If you can “buy” a movie ticket which allows you to watch a movie on a temporary basis, you can “buy” a license to play a game on a temporary basis.
This isn’t even a new, online marketplace problem. Even when you were buying physical disks, you were still purchasing a license, not the game in perpetuity.