No, my point is about whether ownership has a clear definition or not. It does. This is separate from whether or not we like the way the system works for licensing content, and it’s important that people not muddy the waters here.

I think Playstation is doing the muddying.

Did people "buy" something? Was that the word used? If so, shouldn't they have an expectation of "ownership"? If so, then Playstation has destroyed or stolen someone's property.

That's why I wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of "What does to mean to own something?" because it appears that there are various groups, not just pirates, who would like to impose their own definitions, just as the RIAA attempted to state that copying was equal to theft, despite copying not depriving anyone else of the use and enjoyment of the original property.

> I think Playstation is doing the muddying

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. This is how the industry has worked for decades at this point though, so it’s hard to argue that the people doing the standard thing with the standard words are the ones creating confusion.

Yes, they bought a license. They own a license, which means they own the ability to exercise the rights included with that license under the terms and exclusions included in the license. Sony lawyers know what they’re about, you’re welcome to go read the license to find out exactly how they worded their claims about giving you access to material owned by Discovery.

In a way, I'm glad you disagree with me, it proves my original point that "buy" and "owns" have become terms where differing parties can't seem to agree on what they imply, and so we need to be more specific about it.

You could say that about literally anything by just refusing to accept the actual definition, though. One person not accepting that the word means what it means doesn’t mean that the word is unspecific.

It's much muddier when you consider the rights that the possessor of a DVD retains.

If the copyright owners tried to do the same stuff to physical media that they do with digital media, courts would rule against them.

The ownership is still clear in both cases, but the scope of what that ownership means is different.

That’s not muddy at all. You presented cases where one owns something and cases where one owns a license to use a thing and seem surprised that they’re different.

You think it’s muddy because you want owning a license to mean owning the thing. It doesn’t, it never has, and the license terms are clear (if of course a bit verbose).