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.
Comment on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
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.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
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.
tyler@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
You completely misunderstand the first sale doctrine. The doctrine is that copyrighted works are only controllable on the first sale. The copyright holder can’t do anything past that.
The entirety of sales of things for all of humanity wouldn’t function if it was any other way.
You aren’t licensing anything. You are buying an item.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Please show me where it says that purchasing a copyrighted work grants ownership of it.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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:
- 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
- they can’t stop you from reselling the book.
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.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
It won’t radicalize me against copyright because I believe people are entitled to profit from their creations
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?
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Like, you are kinda right in one way, but there’s a difference between owning the intellectual property vs owning a thing.
It should be understood by most people that they are not buying the IP. They do, however, expect to own the product they paid for.
The company is trying to equate owning the IP to owning every copy of the product they sell. This is some bullshit, and everyone knows it.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
I appreciate that you took what I said in good faith. I don’t know if I’m just failing to properly convey - I understand that when, say, you purchase a physical book, you own that thing. That’s because it is a thing, your one copy, a finite object. You do have limited rights to resell it too.
But what I’m trying to get at is, within copyright law as it exists now (and pretty much ever so far), even though you own that physical object itself, because it is bound with a copyrighted work, in a sense you actually do not even own that book. it’s because when you purchase a copyrighted work, what you have done in the eyes of the law is that you have purchased a limited use license. Your rights with that book are still restricted by that copyright.
I’m not trying to say that’s how things should be. I just think it matters to understand how things really are, if we’re inclined to want to change them for the better. Courts are not going to be able to go far enough to create the kinds of reforms that are wanted in the Stop Killing Games movement. It’s going to need new legislations.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Yes, but the restriction on that ownership is the ability to reproduce and sell it. People want the same freedom to keep their copy of it, without access to it because it’s a digital media that only exists in an ethereal form as data on a server, being taken away. We want our copy to actually be ours, physical or not.
I agree it needs new legislation to rephrase all the legalese that confuses the definition of “ownership,” so there is a clear legal distinction between the ownership of the IP and the ownership of a consumer’s purchase of a copy of some media.
tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Bruh copyright is about the right to make copies… completely different thing… its in the name cmon man
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That that 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.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
It’s not a take, dude. It’s literally just what the law is.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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. I can’t say the same thing if my steam library, but I should be able to.
Copyright is about ip, not about the physical media, the end products.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s literally right there in the name - copyright
tyler@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
It is not lol. You do not understand the laws you are trying to quote.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.