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.

Very much this. A great many of us in our early 40s had access to pornography from BBSes or early internet and it didn’t seem to fuck us up. Why are we trying to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist?

Legal sexual gratification between two consenting adults (even if some may find the way they achieve gratification taboo), so long as it’s not illegal, should not be shamed or denied.

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.

^ Exactly this. I was an Apple fanboy (perhaps even shill) until the iPhone 5S when my device had a bad NAND chip causing it to randomly and sporadically blue screen and reboot (as a PC user, the blue screen irony was not lost on me) and Apple jerked me around for 3 months until the phone was out of warranty and then told me I should have bought Apple Care on the phone even though the issue started before the 1 year warranty had expired.

I didn’t find this acceptable as I had written proof I’d taken the phone in to the shop multiple times during the warranty period, ended up calling their corporate office of the president where they worked with me to generate logs from the device and send them to Apple techs who would review it, at which point they came back and said “yeah it looks like the NAND chip is bad” and “but it’s out of warranty”. When I told the person from Apple this was ridiculous because I’d been an Apple customer for decades and I’d had umpteen Macs and Macbook laptops and iPhones and I’d never had this problem, she cut me off and said “Apple doesn’t have a customer loyalty program, sir”

I took the 5S out to my driveway and smashed it with a hammer and went and bought a $200 HTC One E8 and I’ve been an Android user ever since and will never give Apple a penny if I can avoid it. The products were fine, the software was good, but the service/company is rotten.

Agreed – especially with things like the Secret of Mana remake in the recent rear-view, sometimes it is apparent that the team updating the game doesn’t understand the overall charm of the original. Here’s hoping that the update is light-touch and manages to keep the charm and fun of the SNES classic, but to your point even if not, the old one is still superb when played on an emulator.

In a world where Steve Huffman has called reddit’s data “his data to sell”, it has become abundantly clear that he has absolutely no respect for the fact that it is his users and moderators that create the community – all that he and the admins do is create a system whereby the community can create and curate content. Without users, he has a big expensive and empty server.

It’s not “his data”, it’s the community’s data. The fact that he’s acting like he owns all of it pretty much sums up why I overwrote and deleted all of my content on reddit, and it is precisely why I will never provide free content for that website ever again.

Agreed – not only do I think OP misunderstood Louis’s point (if you have the means to help and the opportunity to help, you should help), their post also doesn’t make clear that the comments being cited and quoted in it weren’t actually said by Louis during the video (or said by him on the channel), but were comments made on the YouTube video by people completely unrelated to him.

It seems easy to read the post and mis-attribute the quotes to Louis based on how it is written, but he didn’t actually say any of those things.