The way the law is currently structured, there is no such thing as digital ownership, only licensing. And since there is an enormous disparity in negotiating power between consumers and massive copyright owners, the prevailing licensing terms overwhelmingly favor the copyright holders.
The solution is to change the law. But the disparity in power between corporate copyright holders and consumers manifests itself in politics just as it does in the market.
As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library.
Note the use of "purchased" (not "licensed"). To a layman, purchased means "I bought the thing" not "I bought an ephermeral license to the thing". US consumer protection law sucks goat ass - language around digital content licensing could easily be "fixed" (but won't because our government is a revolving door with industry insiders).
Yeah, they definitely pretend you've purchased the content. But you've only purchased a license, and even the license is so weak that it effectively says "you can use this as long as we arbitrarily decide you can, and we can take your license away at any time without refunding your money." So you're not really buying anything at all.
Polls have found that the average person in the US can't tell you many of the basics of how their government works. The laws aren't based on people taking the time to understand them. It is complex enough there really isn't the time. Especially if you spend the average amount of time staring at rectangle screens.
"our government is a revolving door with industry insiders" ... this is partly due to government compensation compared to the free market and our present desire for those with the ability to navigate this complexity to want to make piles of money. It's all about the benjamins. Which is also why IP holders use the law the way they do.
For me if DRM is involved it is always a rental, license or no, as I am left unable to legally keep an archival copy to retain access to the purchased item beyond the undisclosed access window.
A license is a license. They don't have to expire either. I can sell a perpetual license to something.
> For me if DRM is involved it is always a rental, license or no, as I am left unable to legally keep an archival copy to retain access to the purchased item beyond the undisclosed access window.
Call it whatever you want. The correct term is a license. You were licensed something in accordance with a bunch of terms that may have included, for example, DRM. It's a license to use the good in accordance with the terms of the license. Why confuse things?
In my view, you my friend are the one who is confused. “Purchasing a license” is lawyerese nonsense. How can I buy something and then be arbitrarily deprived of it by the person who sold it to me at their whim? That cannot reasonably be called purchasing in my view. Either ownership transfers in a way that the seller loses control, or they retain control and no transfer of ownership occurs, only a transfer of possession. Now I know IP law says something else, but just because a bad idea is encoded into law does not make it a good idea.
Or think of it like this: what if I “purchase a license” to use a hammer, and as part of that license the hammer’s owner can ask me to return the hammer at a time of their choosing. Am I buying the hammer, or am I renting the hammer? Don’t get distracted by the nonsense of “buying a license to use the hammer”. What am I doing with the hammer?
I guess you need to take it up with a lawyer, then?
>How can I buy something and then be arbitrarily deprived of it by the person who sold it to me at their whim?
same way with a physical license. I have a license to drive, I still need to pay every year to renew my license to ensure my car meets safety standards and that I'm a registered citizen and whatnot. I also need to be re-tested every so often and my picture retaken every year to update my likeness or that license is rendered null.
I don't see it as any different from a digital license. No one would say I "rented my license".
> Either ownership transfers in a way that the seller loses control, or they retain control and no transfer of ownership occurs, only a transfer of possession
Those aren't technically impossible. Just not a feature in enough demand for anyone to implement. Car metphor works here too: I can't transfer my license to drive to another person.
>Now I know IP law says something else, but just because a bad idea is encoded into law does not make it a good idea.
not at all. But it's what you need to argue against and challenge to make any real change. And "it's nonsense" isn't the most sound argument. We can interpret all we want here, but ultimately it does nothing to society at large.
>Or think of it like this: what if I “purchase a license” to use a hammer, and as part of that license the hammer’s owner can ask me to return the hammer at a time of their choosing. Am I buying the hammer, or am I renting the hammer? Don’t get distracted by the nonsense of “buying a license to use the hammer”. What am I doing with the hammer?
sounds like something that can happen if you tweak it slightly. s/Hammer/Gun (albiet we now enter controversial territory) and you see how it settles in. You need a license to own a gun, you can buy and own a gun, but you can have that gun revoked for crimes that may not even be related to the gun itself.
People would still say you own the gun and have a license to operate one. But you can have it taken away. A bit strong armed for a metaphor to video games, but this is more to show that the model of ownership and revoking of possession isn't necessarily stuck in the digital realm.
>> “Purchasing a license” is lawyerese nonsense. How can I buy something and then be arbitrarily deprived of it by the person who sold it to me at their whim?
> same way with a physical license. I have a license to drive, I still need to pay every year to renew my license...
What do you mean? Did you "purchase a driver's license"? Have you ever heard someone use that phrase?
I didn't buy my license, no (or maybe I did in various misc. fees back then. But that's not the largest barrier to owning one). But I do need to purchase the ability to operate my car on my country's roads. Which effectively means my license costs money in some way or form to be usable.
And no, I've never heard anyone say they "bought a license". But I've never heard anyone say they "rented a movie in perpetualty" either. Real life conversation generally isn't that verbose.
After one day's thought, "rented a movie in perpetuity" is almost as bonkers as "bought a driver's license". Yesterday, I was only asking for more explanation why you introduced the latter into the conversation.
> But I do need to purchase the ability to operate my car on my country's roads. Which effectively means my license costs money in some way or form to be usable.
I see a gulf between "costs money" and "bought". FWIW, I paid registration fees for my driver's license -- aka taxes.
No, everybody who bought a digital movie rented it in perpetuity (until license is withdrawn), so the point is just getting people to use a different language by changing the button
I never ever read or heard "buying a driver license", but I "buy" videogames and audiobooks every time, even though it's a license, and that's the problem
That's...exactly the issue at hand. These companies are not doing much, if anything, to educate their customers on the difference between purchasing a license and purchasing the thing itself. This is, of course, deliberate.
The problem here is, that it shouldnt even be labeled as "purchase" (well, "buy" usually), but "rent". Purchasing a licence to rent the content is weasel wording around stuff that is well known and consumers expect it to work in a certain way (eg. buying a dvd or renting a dvd, where in the first case you actually own the dvd, and in the second, you know that they expect you to return it after some time). In every other business, "buy" means "buy", buy a dvd, buy a sandwich, buy a car, buy this, buy that... nowhere else are you expected to return the item (at least not without a refund, eg. in case of a recall).
Weird, never seen this complained of in the context of purchasing a software license, which I assume is something the HN crowd is familiar with.
It's not "weasel wording" it's the accurate term. It can also be true that the media companies can make it more clear that what is being purchased is a license which is subject to terms.
I think buying a DvD is the perfect analogue here. You own the shiny disc, you don't own the contents on that disc.
We're just taking away the shiny disc in the digital era. It's not a perfect term, but for 99.999% of people, "indefinitely rental for years until the servers die", would associate with "buy".
But in the dvd case you don’t expect someone to effectively repossess your dvd a couple years down the road without reimbursing you. You don’t own the content but you do own your dvd which allows you to indefinitely watch the content.
I mean, yes. You are not allowed to circumvent the terms of the license. Why would you think that you would be able to do that? Do you make archival copies of keys to AirBnBs so you can retain access to the purchased room after the access window?
You didn't purchase a room, you rented a room for X days. Imagine buying (purchasing) an apartment at full price, and after a year or two living there, someone comes and "we made a whoopsie with our licences, we need your apartment back".
The text on the button on their site was “purchase” as of a few years ago (it’s now “reserve”). Also, the apartment analogy is a good one. There are a lot of clauses in apartment leases which can get your lease revoked. In no case would it be ok for you to have made an archival copy of the key to keep access.
>Imagine buying (purchasing) an apartment at full price, and after a year or two living there, someone comes and "we made a whoopsie with our licences, we need your apartment back".
2008 housing crash in a nutshell. Your metaphor would work if you were rich enough to not require a mortgage and can truly buy it outright, but the vast majority of people don't "buy a house", unfortunately. They seek a mortgage (fancy term for "loan"), the seller gives the home to the bank, and the buyer gains the deed when they pay off the loan, likely for an amount greater than the cost of the home.
This is just a huge tangent, but your example was a sad reality for some unlucky "homeowners" when the system failed.
Sure, that's what I said. But the distinction between "license to a thing" and "own a thing" is lost of most people, especially when the seller goes out of their way to make the "licensing agreement" look like a normal sale.
Nothign about the law precludes you from owning anything digitally. I can sell you a digital copy of a photograph, giving you the copyright and everything. No need for a license. What makes you think otherwise?
You've answered your own question here. It's not so much about what precludes you from selling something digitally, as it is about what precludes that person from simply making copies and distributing them for the marginal compute cost plus some profit. The answer is copyright law, which has been steadily strengthened over the years in response to the lobbying of corporate copyright holders. In order to sell even one digital copy to another person, they'd have to buy the copyright from you. And why would you sell the copyright to them when you can leverage it to sell licenses instead?
Agreed that I should've said "there is no such thing as digital ownership in practice", at least for consumers.
The solution is to change the law. But the disparity in power between corporate copyright holders and consumers manifests itself in politics just as it does in the market.