this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
821 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
60073 readers
2960 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Amazon does the same thing. You don't own digital content you pay for, you're renting it.
You're paying to use their license, piracy or buying the media physically is the only way to own it.
If the button says"buy", ownership is inferred. That's a lie, of course.
You own it as long as they have a license to host and stream it.
They should be offering refunds for this at least, but you literally cannot own something that permanently lives on someone else’s device.
If you want to truly on something, you need to control physical access to it. If there is an option to download the media when you buy it, and you can store it on your own device, then you own it. If not, then you only have access as long as you’re paying someone else for access to their storage.
Which is almost impossible now. You can't even play offline games without internet access because companies force you to use their app to launch it.
I thought I would be able to get around that system with EA by purchasing a hard copy of the game circa 2016, but nope, I just bought a plastic case to throw away. I miss the old days of owning things.
The problem is that what you're buying is a license. Of course it has to be a license, because unlike a physical good, anything delivered digitally could be replicated infinitely, and of course you wouldn't be allowed to do something like open your own storefront to resell copies of it. Nor would you legally be allowed to play it on the radio, as background music in a store, etc.
"Buy" isn't really that different here than if you bought a ticket to a concert; of course you wouldn't be able to attend next year with the same ticket, but you still bought something. The problem is that with digital licenses, they can be INCREDIBLY varied, and sellers don't make even a small attempt to clarify what the terms are.
You use the word ownership, but at least from a legal standpoint, that doesn't really mean anything intuitive, unless it means you hold all rights to the IP (which, again, you don't). It would be nice if there was some widespread legal definition and norms about "ownership of a digital copy", but no such concept exists, and frankly the rights holders are not incentivized to try to create something like this.
“Not incentivized”!
They like using the current word “buy” because people think it means they “own” a digital copy. Since that’s not true what we’re really saying here is that they like lying because that makes them more money.
I think the more honest term is “rent”. A normal rental agreement online is for like 48hrs. This is a rental agreement for a much longer, but unspecified, time period.
You’d think a court case would clear this up. But probably not.
Part of the problem is that court cases don't materialize from nothing. A judge can only rule on a case before them. So you would need someone to bring out a specific complaint against a specific party. So there needs to be a lot of money on the line for someone who actually feels they can win. A class action against all online media storefronts just isn't that.
Also, it's a difficult case because the terms of the legal license that each customer are being asked to read and agree to ARE being upheld properly -- so you either have to make the case that asking a customer to agree to terms digitally that they've pretty please read isn't binding (which kills all digital commerce, because it all becomes a liability nightmare!), or, that the website etc is materially misleading / misrepresenting the agreements; we've talked about consumers maybe being prone to misunderstanding "buy" here, but I really don't believe it's a legal slam dunk.
If anything, the faster path to improve this the way you're looking for would be legislation.