Ken Chan
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 1999
- Messages
- 3,302
- Real Name
- Ken
Yes, it is theirs. But with digital media, there is a difference. As with any other property, there are atoms, but there are also bits. Previous laws (including the laws of physics) protect the atoms, but how do you protect the bits, which are so easy to extract, copy, and distribute? And of course, with downloads there are no atoms, just bits.
I am not a fan of the semantics that Mark describes, that you don't own stuff, you're just licensing it in perpetuity. But as a legal fiction, it kinda works.
But to be more proactive in protecting the bits, they can be encrypted, so they are useful only if you have the key. That key could even be reassignable, in the spirit of First Sale rights. If not, people buy and use consumables every day that have no First Sale benefits. In the same way, such media is only useful to them, but it is not lost when consumed, and is reusable, putting it in the middle of the property-use spectrum. As long as people knowingly buy into the deal, how is that wrong?
I am not a fan of the semantics that Mark describes, that you don't own stuff, you're just licensing it in perpetuity. But as a legal fiction, it kinda works.
But to be more proactive in protecting the bits, they can be encrypted, so they are useful only if you have the key. That key could even be reassignable, in the spirit of First Sale rights. If not, people buy and use consumables every day that have no First Sale benefits. In the same way, such media is only useful to them, but it is not lost when consumed, and is reusable, putting it in the middle of the property-use spectrum. As long as people knowingly buy into the deal, how is that wrong?
