n1ckn4m3

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=wmlr

Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being “owned”. There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don’t know where you’re getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it’s incorrect.

You’re confusing ownership of media with ownership of copyright. I’m not suggesting that I can buy an mp3 and reshare it (or the same for an ebook), that’s a violation of copyright. I’ve never suggested that buying them lets me remove DRM, re-share, etc. It’s a strawman argument that you and conciselyverbose seem very attached to, but not an argument I’m making.

Ownership is not strictly limited to physical items, and I’m very curious why people think it is. There’s significant outstanding case law precedent that proves that ownership can apply to digital files as well.

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn’t furthering the discussion. I’ve provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I’ve provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.

I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it’s x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I’m not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I’m not here to take someone’s word without any corroborating evidence.

I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn’t mean that other places don’t exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I’ve done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it’s not possible to “own” a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.

That’s not accurate. Go buy an MP3 from Bandcamp, you own the mp3 (it’s a merchandise transaction, not a license, it’s very explicit in the terms of service) – you don’t own a license to the mp3, you own the actual mp3 (same as you would own a CD). The same is true of several other mp3 stores and a handful of ebook providers, as well as when you buy ebooks directly from the author (quick example: https://melissafmiller.com/how-and-why-to-buy-ebooks-direct-from-me-and-other-authors/).

Owning the CD doesn’t allow you to make derivative works as owning the CD doesn’t make you the copyright holder, just like owning the mp3 doesn’t actually mean you’re the copyright holder, and I’m not making any argument otherwise (referring to your “legally permitted to do whatever you want” comment) – but you absolutely can buy mp3s and ebooks and not license them.

DRM is an entirely separate issue and not relevant here as none of what I’m referring to relates to non-DRM protected licensed content.

I can own an ebook or an MP3, while some services license them many of them actually just sell you the media outright. Why are movies any different?

Otherwise, I agree, if we’re (for some legitimate reason) forced into licensing instead of purchasing, the license needs to be perpetual and irrevocable.

Instead of working to create a cost effective, quick method for users to buy (AND OWN, NOT LICENSE) digital movies, the MPAA is instead going to try and censor the internet. Brilliant move, idiots.

I gave them a crap review in the Android app store because of it – I have absolutely no need for my lights to be able to be controlled over the internet outside of my house, and I don’t want the feature nor do I want my hue bulbs connected via any stupid cloud link so they COULD be managed over the internet outside of my house. Their response was “as we add new features, so too do we add new security features to protect the platform and that justifies us requiring you to have a login and make your devices controllable via the cloud”. Uh huh.

I’ve set the Android app to never automatically update in the future and I’m really hopeful that I can avoid this garbage requirement by doing so, but I’m sure they’ve thought of it and I’m going to end up having to move to 3rd party apps to control them eventually.

This is a very valid point – elections don’t stop at the primaries either!

I think it’s a mix of things. I agree a lot of people don’t participate in the primaries and they really should, but I’d also stress the importance of elevating the quality of the candidates we have. I don’t believe any of the primary candidates right now have any idea what it’s like to live in the USA as an “average” person. For starters, the average age of US citizens is 39, but the average age of the 3 current candidates is 74, with each of them being a minimum of 30 years older than the average American. I am not trying to promote ageism in any way, but I would really prefer if we had leadership that was less removed time-wise. I just don’t personally believe that someone at 70 or 80 has any reasonable idea what it’s like to be an American in the 30-40 age range right now – their experiences with that age come from a time prior to the advent of cellular telephones, social media, personal computing technology, etc.

On top of that, even if you look past the age gap, the choices we have so far really don’t instill great confidence.

RFK Jr is an admitted openly vocal anti-vax believer and also a vocal science denier (he still promotes belief in the link between vaccines and autism which has been systemically dis-proven), neither of which are popular positions to the left and will likely cost him votes. Biden has a low approval rating and a lot of Democrat voters don’t see him as a strong or effectual president, but he’s likely to get the nomination because he previously beat Trump and seems to be the defacto “if you’re voting against Trump instead of voting for someone, vote for him” nominee. Marianne Williamson is at least a fresh, non-dynastic face in the political race with a reasonable track record as an independent, but because she’d been an independent until 2019 and because she’s female there’s a subsection of voters who will adamantly refuse to vote for her regardless of her political stance, making her unlikely to win the nomination over Biden.

I really hope that we start to see greater candidate diversity in the future and I agree that it starts with showing up to vote, I just wish we had candidates that felt more representative of the party ideals and also of our overall population than what we’re getting now.