At CinemaCon this year, the Motion Picture Association Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin said the organization is going to work with Congress to establish and enforce a site-blocking legislation in the United States.
Yes, it is. It is fundamentally not possible to own a specific copy of a file. There is no legal basis for it. It is literally always, unconditionally, a license in every possible scenario where you don’t gain actual copyright assignment. It cannot possibly be anything else.
It doesn’t matter what their page says or how they present it. They can grant you unlimited rights to copy for personal use, but literally every time you move a file to a new drive or device is a completely distinct new file. It is not the same entity.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn’t furthering the discussion. I’ve provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I’ve provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.
I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it’s x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I’m not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I’m not here to take someone’s word without any corroborating evidence.
I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn’t mean that other places don’t exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I’ve done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it’s not possible to “own” a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.
No, you posted links claiming to do something impossible.
There is no legal concept of ownership of a file. It does not exist. There is no framework that can be interpreted to enable someone to own a specific copy of a file, which again, disappears every time you move it. You own the intellectual property contained in a file, or you don’t.
The framework that does exist is a license to a file (not a specific copy. Specific copies don’t mean anything). That license can be insanely permissive. It can grant you anything from permission to change, alter, and redistribute without any permission or attribution, to “you can view this once on this specific device”, and pretty much anything in between. But it’s always a license. It’s not capable of being anything else.
Physical media is ownership of that actual physical item. The law has added an implied license granted by possession of said item that grants additional rights to back up the contents, on a very limited basis, but the only thing with ownership involved is the actual physical media.
Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being “owned”. There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don’t know where you’re getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it’s incorrect.
Read the fine print on your DVD’s/CD’s and you’ll see he’s right. The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise - but that’s just the truth man.
It’s because it’s a limited license delivered in a physical format.
U.S. Copyright law requires that all videos displayed outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school, library, auditorium, classroom or meeting room must have public performance rights. Public performance rights are a special license that is either purchased with a video or separately from the video to allow the video to be shown outside of personal home use. This statute applies to all videos currently under copyright. This includes videos you have purchased, borrowed from the library, or rented from a video store or services like Netflix.
You realize that that paper is literally calling the entire premise you’re arguing for as “unrecognized by law” and is an argument that the law needs to change, right? It doesn’t even sort of support you on the current status. It’s a giant call to action to change the law.
What you own is a license. I’m literally all cases. There is legally nothing in between copyright assignment and a license in any scenario. It does not exist, and is not capable of existing without completely rewritten copyright law.
The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise
But if you try to resell the “single copy” of digital content you supposedly own from any of the platforms with that marketing lie, every one of them will aggressively take action. And they’ll win every time.
Because you don’t and can’t own a copy of a file and don’t have the inherent rights ownership provides.
Downvotes for being correct. Everything is licensed. Only the copyright owner holds anything other than a license. There is no legal framework for it working otherwise.
It’s wild how many people are buying into “it’s not a license” marketing fluff, when actually acknowledging it as the license it necessarily has to be and explicitly granting rights would be way more in the consumer’s interest.
The fact that they’re DRM free is good. But a vague marketing statement that “you own it” without actually clearly granting rights in a license is not good. (There might be license terms somewhere on the sites he’s referring to; I didn’t check because it isn’t actually relevant to anything.)
Yes, it is. It is fundamentally not possible to own a specific copy of a file. There is no legal basis for it. It is literally always, unconditionally, a license in every possible scenario where you don’t gain actual copyright assignment. It cannot possibly be anything else.
It doesn’t matter what their page says or how they present it. They can grant you unlimited rights to copy for personal use, but literally every time you move a file to a new drive or device is a completely distinct new file. It is not the same entity.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn’t furthering the discussion. I’ve provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I’ve provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.
I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it’s x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I’m not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I’m not here to take someone’s word without any corroborating evidence.
I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn’t mean that other places don’t exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I’ve done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it’s not possible to “own” a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.
No, you posted links claiming to do something impossible.
There is no legal concept of ownership of a file. It does not exist. There is no framework that can be interpreted to enable someone to own a specific copy of a file, which again, disappears every time you move it. You own the intellectual property contained in a file, or you don’t.
The framework that does exist is a license to a file (not a specific copy. Specific copies don’t mean anything). That license can be insanely permissive. It can grant you anything from permission to change, alter, and redistribute without any permission or attribution, to “you can view this once on this specific device”, and pretty much anything in between. But it’s always a license. It’s not capable of being anything else.
Physical media is ownership of that actual physical item. The law has added an implied license granted by possession of said item that grants additional rights to back up the contents, on a very limited basis, but the only thing with ownership involved is the actual physical media.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=wmlr
Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being “owned”. There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don’t know where you’re getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it’s incorrect.
Read the fine print on your DVD’s/CD’s and you’ll see he’s right. The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise - but that’s just the truth man.
Let me ask you this: if you “own“ your movie, choose whatever format you like: Why do you have to pay a fee to screen it to multiple people if everyone isn’t physically in your home and only to your family? It’s not like my cell phone stops being my property when I leave my house.
It’s because it’s a limited license delivered in a physical format.
You realize that that paper is literally calling the entire premise you’re arguing for as “unrecognized by law” and is an argument that the law needs to change, right? It doesn’t even sort of support you on the current status. It’s a giant call to action to change the law.
What you own is a license. I’m literally all cases. There is legally nothing in between copyright assignment and a license in any scenario. It does not exist, and is not capable of existing without completely rewritten copyright law.
You can argue whatever you want.
But if you try to resell the “single copy” of digital content you supposedly own from any of the platforms with that marketing lie, every one of them will aggressively take action. And they’ll win every time.
Because you don’t and can’t own a copy of a file and don’t have the inherent rights ownership provides.
Dude we agree
Downvotes for being correct. Everything is licensed. Only the copyright owner holds anything other than a license. There is no legal framework for it working otherwise.
It’s wild how many people are buying into “it’s not a license” marketing fluff, when actually acknowledging it as the license it necessarily has to be and explicitly granting rights would be way more in the consumer’s interest.
The fact that they’re DRM free is good. But a vague marketing statement that “you own it” without actually clearly granting rights in a license is not good. (There might be license terms somewhere on the sites he’s referring to; I didn’t check because it isn’t actually relevant to anything.)