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.

While you're throwing stones, I presume you have absolutely no problem with the 220 executive orders that Trump made? Or the 291 that George W. Bush made? Or the 166 that George Bush made?

How's that glass house treating you?

"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.