The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony’s legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store.
The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony’s legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store.
It’s kind of funny how everyone is up in arms about this now (and for good reasons), when like, that’s how copyright has always worked? You don’t own anything that’s copyrighted, except for what you yourself create and get a copy-monopoly on.
When I buy a copy of something I don’t expect to own the intellectual property and all of the themes and elements that make up the intellectual property. I expect to own that one copy that I bought. Just the copy. The medium.
That take is nuts. Are you telling me you’ve never bought anything in your life? That’s the only way I can imagine that you could be so far off base.
It’s not a take, dude. It’s literally just what the law is.
Your so wrong is impressive.
Every book on my bookshelf is copyrighted, but I own those books, OWN. I can resell them, legally, regardless of copyright. There are used bookstores that base their business around buying said copyrighted material and reselling them (Again, perfectly legal). I can’t say the same thing about my steam library, but I should be able to.
Copyright is about ip, not about the physical media, the end products.
It’s literally right there in the name - copyright
Bruh copyright is about the right to make copies… completely different thing… its in the name cmon man
No, this has never been how copyright works, if you buy a book you own that copy of the book, the author can’t go into your house and take the book back, they can’t force a new version of the book onto you, they can’t require you to proof you own the book before they allow you to read it, and they can’t stop you from reselling the book. You OWN that copy, you don’t own the IP, but you own that copy of the book.
You own the physical thing, but you’re still only licensing the copy of the work, and agreeing to that license on purchase. Lookup the first sale doctrine. Your ability to resell used copyrighted works literally hinges on a supreme court decision.
What I’m trying to get at is, this should not only aggravate us towards Sony. It should radicalize you against Copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement
It won’t radicalize me against copyright because I believe people are entitled to profit from their creations, and until we live in a society beyond the need of money corporations would fuck everyone in the ass (even more so than what they do now) if there were no copyright laws. Or do you any of the mega corporations in Hollywood would give a cent in the direction of a good story of they weren’t legally required to?
In any case, that is different from what Sony is doing now. Like I said before:
Those are not covered by copyright law, you have a right to do that with your books but not with your Sony games.
This steamed from the way digital downloads came about, and we agreed to trade some rights for ease of access, but companies like GoG show that it’s possible to have digital downloads while preserving some of those rights.
One, in a capitalist society, the only thing that entitles you to profit from your work is the completion of a sale. I can draw a crude picture of a turd right now, and despite suddenly becoming an artist, I am not automatically entitled to profit. Two, copyright does not help artists profit. It allows the biggest corporations to consolidate media ownership in their names. By contrast, the internet, which has allowed the free sharing of media on a scale that completely eclipses any other time in history, has allowed more artists than ever to profit from their work. If you care about artists making a living, then you should support information freedom. If you prefer concentrating wealth and media control into one small racket, then yeah I guess copyright is your thing.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you want to reform the legal framework into something equitable, or you can keep bitching about the excesses of the evil corporations for doing the same bullshit they’ve always been doing, while still wanting the same laws that make them what they are to begin with.
And meanwhile, you’re having this argument on a free and open-source platform… why?
First of all, you’re the only one talking about copyright, none of the things we’re talking relate to copyright. Copyright has been a thing for a long time and we’ve never had these issues with anything from books to kitchen utensils.
Also you’re purposefully ignoring the points I keep making every answer, I keep giving you examples of rights you have on a book that you don’t on a digitally downloaded game and you keep ignoring that as if it was the same thing. It’s not, the issue at hand is with that difference, if you can’t spot it maybe you should read more on the subject.
But just to give you an answer since you seem hell bent in making this about copyright, what do you think would happen in the society we live in if tomorrow all copyright laws were to vanish? People already do derivative work as long as they’re not profiting from it, fanfics and fan drawings have never been an issue, but now they can charge for it. Big whoop, nothing much changes there. But on the other hand, a starving writer who wrote his first good novel and wants to publish it takes it to a book publisher and his name gets erased and it’s published by the company instead, because no copyright means the author has no claim over it. An artist creates a cool character that becomes viral, now Hollywood is making a movie, but does not have to give 1 cent to the artist. You’re only looking at the ugly side of copyright, you’re forgetting that companies will abuse anything , and you’re failing to see that the lack of rights will be more abused, and if you remove copyright laws that’s in THEIR best interest, you won’t be able to make a new God of War that can compete with theirs, but they can take any idea you might have and make a million dollars product out of it that you won’t see a cent.
Finally, I never said I don’t believe in free and open platforms, or copyleft or creative Commons licenses, but that’s not the same as removing licenses. First of all, that is optional, you’re not forced to make your project free and open source, if there were no copyright laws you would still not be able to reproduce closed source programs, but they could simply copy open source ones. GNU license is very restrictive and contagious exactly for this reason, which has stopped corporations from doing nasty things, without those copyright protections GNU and Linux would not be where they are now because corporations would have stolen it. Copyleft and CC licenses follow similar patterns, you’re free to modify and redistribute but only if your product keeps that license, that discourages companies from stealing it as it would poison the well and their product would not be copyrightable, but if nothing is copyrightable then everything is fair game and the companies would not think for a second before stealing content. Think for one second on how companies operate and you’ll understand why copyright is needed to protect indie artists from them.
You don’t own the IP rights to the work but you can own a copy of it to do as you wish with. Unless of course you are merely renting a copy or purchasing a license to use that copy temporarily. That’s the difference being discussed here, nobody in their right mind thinks buying super mario 64 means you own mario the concept.