this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
172 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59682 readers
3742 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
172
The History and Future of Digital Ownership (www.theverge.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'd like to get the community's feedback on this. I find it very disturbing that digital content purchased on a platform does not rightfully belong to the purchaser and that the content can be completely removed by the platform owners. Based on my understanding, when we purchase a show or movie or game digitally, what we're really doing is purchasing a "license" to access the media on the platform. This is different from owning a physical copy of the same media. Years before the move to digital media, we would buy DVDs and Blu-Rays the shows and movies we want to watch, and no one seemed to question the ownership of those physical media.

Why is it that digital media purchasing and ownership isn't the same as purchasing and owning the physical media? How did it become like this, and is there anything that can be done to convince these platforms that purchasing a digital copy of a media should be equivalent to purchasing a physical DVD or Blu-Ray disc?

P.S. I know there's pirating and all, but that's not the focus of my question.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echo64 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So? If the licence holder wanted, they could just put an option in for you to sell what you have. The nft does not matter. It is not needed and is just added bullshit

[–] CaptainSpaceman -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How do you think they can force me to sell?

[–] echo64 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Force? No one said force. I am talking about something like steam letting you sell your game. They could if they wanted and it doesn't need nfts. Nfts are just bullshit coins that serve no real purpose.

Everything you might claim you can do with nfts, you can do today without nfts, or it's a ponzi scheme.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

NFTs are a necessary prerequisite for trading games with peers without being locked into some bullshit monopoly like steam community trading

[–] echo64 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

you're still locked in because the licence provider has to recognise the NFT, the lock-in is with the licence provider. all the NFT is, is a ticket that says "I'm allowed".

it's the exact same thing but will added bullshit.

if you want a tradable token that doesn't require lock-in, that token has to have intrinsic value. Like with a physical disk with a movie on it. there is no lock-in to a vendor system, it's got everything it needs right there. it has intrinsic value.

NFT's are a bullshit ticket that says "please give me access, you pwomised", that you can sell if you want. but you could just do the same thing inside the vendors own system and it's all exactly the same because the vendor has to say yes/no in the end, as the nft has no value.