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

Technology

59106 readers
5643 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
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And yet, somehow, GOG and Itch still exist, allowing you to download games completely DRM-free, as often as you like. If they ever go out of business, you can still use your local copies forever.

How do they do it? A mystery...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That takes a lot less bandwidth than streaming. All business have fixed costs. Blockbuster Video had to pay rent for physical stores, for example. Delivering via the net is relatively cheap compared to stores or physical postage. I'd be surprised if GOG's cost aren't much lower than anything physical.

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

Well then let me actually download the movie like it was a game, then! And how exactly does it take less bandwidth? It's still tens or hundreds of gigabytes to download every time someone wants to install a game, most people only use the offline installers as backups.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

But how often do you install the same game? A streaming movie needs to be (partially) downloaded every time someone watches it. But yes, I shouldn't jump to the conclusion that this ends up being a higher bandwidth cost per dollar purchasing price.

When you keep a backup, then the download was basically just a way of delivering a physical copy. I answered why we can't have online property.

As to why many don't allow you to keep a private copy. For the obvious reason: To maintain control over their property and monetize it to the highest degree possible.