[EMIRELADERO]

> Digital media goods are more akin to buying tickets, rather than actual albums. We always had subscriptions for stuff like TV, so I don't know what the erosion is here. Even today, you have options for entertainment that don't involve a subscription.

The point of contention is that people want to own digital files of the content they pay for. It's as simple as that. They don't want to be subject to any licensing terms besides the limits that are natively placed upon them by copyright law itself.

[biogene]

I agree about the contention, the counter point that I'm making is that nothing has changed or eroded. I believe that art works can have ownership claims, and that intellectual property is real.

Assuming a work-for-hire type contract, you own the stuff you paid someone to create. Then YOU can do whatever you want with it including licensing it or selling digital tickets or copying it to a thousand different devices or distributing it for free.

[EMIRELADERO]

I don't think that people who complain about those things are saying IP isn't "real" or that they should get free media. Their (and my) point is that the practice of trying to put DRM (and licensing terms in general) into consumer products and IP goods that are meant to be experienced/viewed is a predatory and unethical practice. Copyright law allows for a balanced level of control over the works at issue, but the companies want more than that so they lock them behind contracts of dubious enforceability and essentially try to remove the rights consumers traditionally held over copies of media they purchased.

Whether they can legally do it is a currently pending issue (see Andino v. Apple) but the main point is that even if they could, it's still wrong.

Might doesn't make right.

[biogene]

>Whether they can legally do it is a currently pending issue (see Andino v. Apple) but the main point is that even if they could, it's still wrong.

This is incorrect. There is absolutely no question at all about the legality of copyright or of the rights afforded to the owner by it. This lawsuit is over the use of the word "buy" and about terms of service on a specific content platform.

>Their (and my) point is that the practice of trying to put DRM (and licensing terms in general) into consumer products and IP goods that are meant to be experienced/viewed is a predatory and unethical practice. Copyright law allows for a balanced level of control over the works at issue, but the companies want more than that so they lock them behind contracts of dubious enforceability and essentially try to remove the rights consumers traditionally held over copies of media they purchased.

Thankfully, there are tens of thousands of talented artists all over the world who will take your money and create artworks for you. This continues to be the case, so what rights of yours have been taken away; Its not clear to me.

[EMIRELADERO]

> Thankfully, there are tens of thousands of talented artists all over the world who will take your money and create artworks for you. This continues to be the case, so what rights of yours have been taken away; Its not clear to me.

That does not negate the fact that most popular culture nowadays is locked behind DRM and terms that are on top of the normal copyright protection Congress devised for rightsholders.

According to most content and software production/distribution companies, people shouldn't even own individual copies, but licenses to those. This is even in the case where the average consumer would ordinarily see it as a purchase of a copy outright. There's a very clear line between a subscription service that provides access to movies on a time-limited basis in exchange for a monthly payment and a virtual store "selling" digital goods, using terminology on its UI that deceives consumers, such as "Buy" buttons.