n1ckn4m3

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=wmlr

Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being “owned”. There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don’t know where you’re getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it’s incorrect.

You’re confusing ownership of media with ownership of copyright. I’m not suggesting that I can buy an mp3 and reshare it (or the same for an ebook), that’s a violation of copyright. I’ve never suggested that buying them lets me remove DRM, re-share, etc. It’s a strawman argument that you and conciselyverbose seem very attached to, but not an argument I’m making.

Ownership is not strictly limited to physical items, and I’m very curious why people think it is. There’s significant outstanding case law precedent that proves that ownership can apply to digital files as well.

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn’t furthering the discussion. I’ve provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I’ve provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.

I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it’s x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I’m not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I’m not here to take someone’s word without any corroborating evidence.

I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn’t mean that other places don’t exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I’ve done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it’s not possible to “own” a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.

That’s not accurate. Go buy an MP3 from Bandcamp, you own the mp3 (it’s a merchandise transaction, not a license, it’s very explicit in the terms of service) – you don’t own a license to the mp3, you own the actual mp3 (same as you would own a CD). The same is true of several other mp3 stores and a handful of ebook providers, as well as when you buy ebooks directly from the author (quick example: https://melissafmiller.com/how-and-why-to-buy-ebooks-direct-from-me-and-other-authors/).

Owning the CD doesn’t allow you to make derivative works as owning the CD doesn’t make you the copyright holder, just like owning the mp3 doesn’t actually mean you’re the copyright holder, and I’m not making any argument otherwise (referring to your “legally permitted to do whatever you want” comment) – but you absolutely can buy mp3s and ebooks and not license them.

DRM is an entirely separate issue and not relevant here as none of what I’m referring to relates to non-DRM protected licensed content.

I can own an ebook or an MP3, while some services license them many of them actually just sell you the media outright. Why are movies any different?

Otherwise, I agree, if we’re (for some legitimate reason) forced into licensing instead of purchasing, the license needs to be perpetual and irrevocable.

Instead of working to create a cost effective, quick method for users to buy (AND OWN, NOT LICENSE) digital movies, the MPAA is instead going to try and censor the internet. Brilliant move, idiots.

Doesn’t matter. The entire corrupt justice system continually gives this bozo every single possible way to weasel out of shit that no other person on the planet would ever be granted. Nothing is going to stick, all of the media attention about these cases is only hardening his support on the right. Our justice system is bought and paid for and he is one of the biggest contributors, absolutely none of the court cases are going to stick no matter how many things he may have done that are illegal. Anyone who thinks otherwise has had too much of the kool-aid at this point. Justice is dead and the highest court of the land is in his pocket. This is all for show at this point and it’s only serving him and his base.

Vote like democracy and your country depends on it, because at this point it absolutely does.

“Well, well, well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions”

Can’t argue with any of your points – I can only commiserate with the way you feel as I share a lot of the same sentiments. I appreciate the open candor and willingness to have a dialogue about this!

In my opinion this is flawed logic. Not voting doesn’t accomplish any of the things you want, on the contrary it plays into goals of parties because they want voter apathy – the less people voting the easier it is for an unpopular candidate to win. I’m definitely not voting for someone I like, I’m voting against the person I think will destroy democracy (and I similarly hate that this is the set of options we are given – no one would have picked these candidates).

Doesn’t matter what polls say, doesn’t matter what the media says, don’t be complacent – go vote. Go vote. Go vote. Go vote. I can’t stress this enough, this kind of bullshit puff piece exists solely to keep people from voting by lulling into a false sense of security.

I don’t care if there’s a poll that says 100% of the country hates one or the other, GO VOTE. Ignore these bullshit polls, they are completely and utterly worthless.

Can’t say I disagree. When you fight a cheater by playing 100% by the rules in a world where cheating isn’t punished, you lose every time. This pretty much sums up the last 40 years of the Democratic party.

Unfortunately, they could have a 0% approval rating and we’d still never get the 2/3rds majority in congress to do fuckall about it. This supreme court will continue to pander to corporate and donor interests and act wholly without ethics because our system was built on the concept that people in those roles would act with integrity and utterly falls apart when people on the supreme court flagrantly disregard their responsibility to citizens and act in their own interests.

Are you kidding? On the contrary, Carlson has been proven to be the perfect puppet, he let Putin show up and say whatever the fuck he wanted completely unchecked. Carlson’s now on Putin’s Christmas list. This isn’t the last we’re going to hear of their friendship.

Yeah, but the right only agree that indoctrination exists when it’s colleges indoctrinating people into free-thought which they call being woke. Say that word to them and they’ll be like “rubber, glue, you” because that’s about as many syllables as the average right-winger can muster, and about as intelligent a complete thought as I expect from them as well.

If anyone has watched the last 8-12 years, they’d realize polls exist solely to suck people into a false sense of security to manipulate the vote.

Ignore the fucking polls. GO VOTE. Vote in your local elections. Vote in the primaries. Vote in national elections. Polls are completely and utterly bullshit, just ignore them and GO VOTE.

It doesn’t actually, the law is written specifically to disallow people from boycotting companies that destroy the environment, hate LGBTQ, actively promote anti-LGBTQ ideals, etc., but it DOESN’T stop the alternate – the right can still boycott people who support LGBTQ rights, people who support working to fight climate change, etc. Just another one-sided law attempting to illegalize entirely legal business decisions by the left while allowing the right to continue saying it’s OK to deny people wedding cakes if you hate the gays.

Wait, you’re telling me that this is a one-sided law made in bad faith to illegalize behavior that’s 100% constitutionally protected but that negatively impacts the conservative right while still allowing actions that negatively impact the left? Say it ain’t so.

These laws never seem to backfire because for them to backfire, the left would have to start using all of the loopholes that the right have put in place, and for some reason the left continues to act like they’re “better than that” as the entire country devolves into fascism. I hope they sleep well at night when they say “well we may have lost our country to fascist dictators, but we didn’t break a single rule on the way!”

Just look at the gerrymandering in this country and how it wholly benefits the conservatives and you’ll realize the democrats are wholly incapable of even stressing against the rules, even to save our country from people who are actively working to destroy our freedom and our rights. We’re never going to beat the opposition when the opposition cheats at every turn and we obey all the rules. It’s a losing game and there’s no ethical silver bullet that we can say we upheld when our country is overtaken by immoral and deceitful thieves.

I gave them a crap review in the Android app store because of it – I have absolutely no need for my lights to be able to be controlled over the internet outside of my house, and I don’t want the feature nor do I want my hue bulbs connected via any stupid cloud link so they COULD be managed over the internet outside of my house. Their response was “as we add new features, so too do we add new security features to protect the platform and that justifies us requiring you to have a login and make your devices controllable via the cloud”. Uh huh.

I’ve set the Android app to never automatically update in the future and I’m really hopeful that I can avoid this garbage requirement by doing so, but I’m sure they’ve thought of it and I’m going to end up having to move to 3rd party apps to control them eventually.