Technology

59217 readers

2773 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] 2 points 11 months ago (13 children)

Digital media means that there is an ongoing service behind it. The servers use energy. The parts age and break. It requires a continuing feed of labor and resources to keep going.

Imagine a streaming service that is all based on buying media, instead of subscription or renting. Then suppose all the customers somehow decide that the media they own are enough for now (maybe because money is tight, because inflation). With no more cash coming in, the service goes bankrupt.

In principle, you could have a type of license that allows you to get a new copy in any way you can (torrent, etc.). That would be hard to police, though.

FWIW, owning a physical copy isn't all that, either. There are various ways built-in to make life harder for customers, like geo-blocking. Bypassing these tends to be a criminal offense.

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

Bypassing these tends to be a criminal offense.

lol no, nobody is in jail for ripping their stuff or even straight up torrenting it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If it doesn't bother you that you are threatened with jail over something you might do with your own property, in your own home, without affecting others, then... Well, I can see that you would be living a very jolly life indeed. Good on ya.

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

If you live in America you're threatened with jail every time you go into public. The average person unknowingly breaks 3 federal laws a day, and an avalanche of state and local violations. And these are almost all selectively enforced.

Outright innocence is not enough to escape the brutality of detention.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Hah! Yeah, that's so weird when seen from my culture (Germany). Here, prosecutors must enforce all laws on the books. Anything less would be a criminal offense. The actual day-to-day problems are very similar, though. It is kinda infuriating that the English system works as well as it does.

load more comments (11 replies)