For some things, you can get non-DRM downloadable files, and those you do own. They’re very much the minority, though, and mostly limited to smaller, less-popular shops where they do exist.
I would very much like a law that says that streaming services and DRM’d downloads are required to use words like “rent” or “lease”, never “buy” or any synonym thereof.
No. Outside of VERY rare occurrences, you are still licensing that media. If you owned it you would be able to distribute it yourself and so forth.
And if you actually checked through the fine print for the old big box games you would see very similar verbiage. Presumably the same with music
I do think it would be good to make people more aware of what they are actually paying for. But once EVERYTHING says “lease” it will just kill the meaning of the word.
There are two different types of ownership here, and you’re conflating them.
One is the ownership of a digital copy on the same terms as a physical copy. That allows you to resell your copy, lend it to a friend, move it to a different device, retain the use of it even if the seller no longer exists . . . stuff that falls under the first-sale doctrine and other actions that are generally accepted as “okay” and reasonable. That’s what’s being called out here as not existing for most digital copies.
The other is the ownership of the copyright and permissions to reproduce additional copies. However, that isn’t what most people expect to get when they’re purchasing a copy of a media work, regardless of whether it’s digital or physical. How IP in general and copyright in particular is handled does really need an overhaul, but that isn’t a problem specific to the digital world—it’s equally applicable to print books, oil paintings, and vinyl records.
And to be honest, I’d prefer to see “lease” lose its meaning than “buy” go the same way, because apparently we can’t have both.
One is the ownership of a digital copy on the same terms as a physical copy. That allows you to resell your copy, lend it to a friend, move it to a different device, retain the use of it even if the seller no longer exists . . . stuff that falls under the first-sale doctrine and other actions that are generally accepted as “okay” and reasonable. That’s what’s being called out here as not existing for most digital copies.
And you still aren’t authorized to do that with a “DRM Free” copy (which gets into a mess since those aren’t actually DRM Free but…). In large part because there is no mechanism to transfer authorization for updates and so forth. GoG made a cheeky “take that” to Valve when they said they would allow you to transfer a dead relative’s account… but even that is a huge mess and had a LOT of fine print at the end. Again, there are exceptions but they are few and far between.
Same with buying Ghostbusters on VHS. There is no DRM to speak of involved. But any teacher who threw it on because they were hungover was technically in violation of the terms of purchase and there were a few medium profile cases where people learned about public performance rights when they were showing “their” copy of a movie or album.
You can make as many arguments as you want. Until those go to a court of law they mean nothing.
However, that isn’t what most people expect to get when they’re purchasing a copy of a media work, regardless of whether it’s digital or physical.
We are specifically talking about expectations versus reality. Which gets back to the reality that even when you bought that CD you were engaging in what was a hell of a lot closer to a “lease” than not.
How IP in general and copyright in particular is handled does really need an overhaul, but that isn’t a problem specific to the digital world—it’s equally applicable to print books, oil paintings, and vinyl records.
Which gets back to the original point that most of those purchases were always “leases” because of how the legal system is set up…
Maybe you should post a new article about copyright reform if that’s the topic you want to discuss, rather than trying to drag it into a discussion on a different topic. This one’s about false advertising of digital leases as purchases, which they are not even by the definition applied to physical copies.
For some things, you can get non-DRM downloadable files, and those you do own. They’re very much the minority, though, and mostly limited to smaller, less-popular shops where they do exist.
I would very much like a law that says that streaming services and DRM’d downloads are required to use words like “rent” or “lease”, never “buy” or any synonym thereof.
No. Outside of VERY rare occurrences, you are still licensing that media. If you owned it you would be able to distribute it yourself and so forth.
And if you actually checked through the fine print for the old big box games you would see very similar verbiage. Presumably the same with music
I do think it would be good to make people more aware of what they are actually paying for. But once EVERYTHING says “lease” it will just kill the meaning of the word.
There are two different types of ownership here, and you’re conflating them.
One is the ownership of a digital copy on the same terms as a physical copy. That allows you to resell your copy, lend it to a friend, move it to a different device, retain the use of it even if the seller no longer exists . . . stuff that falls under the first-sale doctrine and other actions that are generally accepted as “okay” and reasonable. That’s what’s being called out here as not existing for most digital copies.
The other is the ownership of the copyright and permissions to reproduce additional copies. However, that isn’t what most people expect to get when they’re purchasing a copy of a media work, regardless of whether it’s digital or physical. How IP in general and copyright in particular is handled does really need an overhaul, but that isn’t a problem specific to the digital world—it’s equally applicable to print books, oil paintings, and vinyl records.
And to be honest, I’d prefer to see “lease” lose its meaning than “buy” go the same way, because apparently we can’t have both.
And you still aren’t authorized to do that with a “DRM Free” copy (which gets into a mess since those aren’t actually DRM Free but…). In large part because there is no mechanism to transfer authorization for updates and so forth. GoG made a cheeky “take that” to Valve when they said they would allow you to transfer a dead relative’s account… but even that is a huge mess and had a LOT of fine print at the end. Again, there are exceptions but they are few and far between.
Same with buying Ghostbusters on VHS. There is no DRM to speak of involved. But any teacher who threw it on because they were hungover was technically in violation of the terms of purchase and there were a few medium profile cases where people learned about public performance rights when they were showing “their” copy of a movie or album.
You can make as many arguments as you want. Until those go to a court of law they mean nothing.
We are specifically talking about expectations versus reality. Which gets back to the reality that even when you bought that CD you were engaging in what was a hell of a lot closer to a “lease” than not.
Which gets back to the original point that most of those purchases were always “leases” because of how the legal system is set up…
Maybe you should post a new article about copyright reform if that’s the topic you want to discuss, rather than trying to drag it into a discussion on a different topic. This one’s about false advertising of digital leases as purchases, which they are not even by the definition applied to physical copies.