[pdpi]

The problem is that we've always been buying licences, it's just that the licence used to be attached to a physical object, so transferring the licence was as easy as transferring ownership of that physical object.

It's never been legal to copy a book, film, or music album and sell the copies, for example, because the licence doesn't allow it. Hence freeware, shareware, and copyleft licences.

[kazinator]

That is false. It is legal to copy materials that you own, provided you don't redistribute the copy, like for protection against loss. A notable exception of this is the USA DMCA. If, to make a copy, you have to break a copy protection scheme, then you are violating the DMCA.

The license isn't what takes away your permission to redistribute copies; copyright law does that by default. The license is only reminding you that it's not lifting that default, not granting you that permission.

Copying is neither here or there. There is an understanding that when you buy a book, you own the physical thing.

If I sell you a toaster and then remotely cause it to self-destruct, I owe you a new toaster.

Grandparent referenced "if buying isn't owning then copying isn't stealing". I would say that "if buying isn't owning, then stealing isn't stealing".

If a toaster is offered to sale to the public which the seller can remotely destroy at any time, and not pay anyone a cent, and the law upholds that, then it's morally fine to just walk out of their store with that toaster without paying.

[dathinab]

yes, but it was (is?) in many places legal to copy Filmes and Musik albums as backup, and iff the original is lost you can very much sell the backup alongside with the license you did buy (kinda, it gets messy practically).

It only mattered that if you sell it you lose it, i.e. you can't buy 1 sell (or gift) 10.

Similarly in analog times this where not unilaterally cancelled licenses. Which are effectively nothing more then time limited licenses where you just don't know how long. (1: un

In law areas outside of copyright this kind of license cancellation terms are often seen as predatory, fraudulent and abusive practices. And _sometimes outright illegal no matter how well you communicated what the license/contract does_ before it was acquired (in some countries).

(1: unilateral cancellable without a brach of license/contract from you side and some other special edge cases to be more precise)

Which is the crux of the problem, not that it isn't attached to physical media, but that it can be cancelled in a mostly despotic manner and you (often) can't make (relevant) backups or similar to protect the availability of the medium either.

[pdpi]

Don't get me wrong: this system where Sony (or whomever else) just deletes stuff from your account with no recourse is absolutely batshit insane.

What I'm getting at is that people are getting the shape of the problem wrong (it was never ownership vs licensing), so the solution has to be different too. E.g. Bluray AACS revocation provides the technical means through which licences for physical media can be revoked just like purely downloadable stuff can.

[pennomi]

It’s not about transfer, it’s about being practically irrevocable.

[pdpi]

I wasn't clear: My point is that limitations on transfer serve are proof that we've always been using licences.

Yes, physical media being de facto irrevocable is the important part, but even that has caveats (such as Bluray AACS revocations).