Technology

59292 readers

4160 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

[email protected]

171

The History and Future of Digital Ownership (www.theverge.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'd like to get the community's feedback on this. I find it very disturbing that digital content purchased on a platform does not rightfully belong to the purchaser and that the content can be completely removed by the platform owners. Based on my understanding, when we purchase a show or movie or game digitally, what we're really doing is purchasing a "license" to access the media on the platform. This is different from owning a physical copy of the same media. Years before the move to digital media, we would buy DVDs and Blu-Rays the shows and movies we want to watch, and no one seemed to question the ownership of those physical media.

Why is it that digital media purchasing and ownership isn't the same as purchasing and owning the physical media? How did it become like this, and is there anything that can be done to convince these platforms that purchasing a digital copy of a media should be equivalent to purchasing a physical DVD or Blu-Ray disc?

P.S. I know there's pirating and all, but that's not the focus of my question.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Nfts don't give you ownership over anything but the nft itself. Everything else is a license system that says, "You can have this because you have an nft," you know, the exact same system we have now but will more bullshit .

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

It's quite amazing that these people don't realize that they're just reinventing DRM, but worse.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Less shit. You could actually trade your fucking games and would not be limited to one platform

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

you're still limited to one platform, the vendor has to recognise the NFT, and vendors are only going to recognise their own NFT's that they saw value from selling.

there is no benefit to bullshit NFT tokens, unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then those games would be subject to Gresham's law LMAO. I would never trust a company that allows transfers between platforms.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You would have a platform to trade games, and another to keep them. The trading platform will be able to undercut the holding platform due to practices such as exclusivity deals. This, in turn, will make the holding platform require a commission fee whenever a game is transferred to it.

If you could get a game for free in the Epic store and transfer it to Steam, where does Steam get the money from?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The NFT is the item though, and it can be easily resold

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So? If the licence holder wanted, they could just put an option in for you to sell what you have. The nft does not matter. It is not needed and is just added bullshit

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How do you think they can force me to sell?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Force? No one said force. I am talking about something like steam letting you sell your game. They could if they wanted and it doesn't need nfts. Nfts are just bullshit coins that serve no real purpose.

Everything you might claim you can do with nfts, you can do today without nfts, or it's a ponzi scheme.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

NFTs are a necessary prerequisite for trading games with peers without being locked into some bullshit monopoly like steam community trading

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

you're still locked in because the licence provider has to recognise the NFT, the lock-in is with the licence provider. all the NFT is, is a ticket that says "I'm allowed".

it's the exact same thing but will added bullshit.

if you want a tradable token that doesn't require lock-in, that token has to have intrinsic value. Like with a physical disk with a movie on it. there is no lock-in to a vendor system, it's got everything it needs right there. it has intrinsic value.

NFT's are a bullshit ticket that says "please give me access, you pwomised", that you can sell if you want. but you could just do the same thing inside the vendors own system and it's all exactly the same because the vendor has to say yes/no in the end, as the nft has no value.