In my view, you my friend are the one who is confused. “Purchasing a license” is lawyerese nonsense. How can I buy something and then be arbitrarily deprived of it by the person who sold it to me at their whim? That cannot reasonably be called purchasing in my view. Either ownership transfers in a way that the seller loses control, or they retain control and no transfer of ownership occurs, only a transfer of possession. Now I know IP law says something else, but just because a bad idea is encoded into law does not make it a good idea.
Or think of it like this: what if I “purchase a license” to use a hammer, and as part of that license the hammer’s owner can ask me to return the hammer at a time of their choosing. Am I buying the hammer, or am I renting the hammer? Don’t get distracted by the nonsense of “buying a license to use the hammer”. What am I doing with the hammer?
I guess you need to take it up with a lawyer, then?
>How can I buy something and then be arbitrarily deprived of it by the person who sold it to me at their whim?
same way with a physical license. I have a license to drive, I still need to pay every year to renew my license to ensure my car meets safety standards and that I'm a registered citizen and whatnot. I also need to be re-tested every so often and my picture retaken every year to update my likeness or that license is rendered null.
I don't see it as any different from a digital license. No one would say I "rented my license".
> Either ownership transfers in a way that the seller loses control, or they retain control and no transfer of ownership occurs, only a transfer of possession
Those aren't technically impossible. Just not a feature in enough demand for anyone to implement. Car metphor works here too: I can't transfer my license to drive to another person.
>Now I know IP law says something else, but just because a bad idea is encoded into law does not make it a good idea.
not at all. But it's what you need to argue against and challenge to make any real change. And "it's nonsense" isn't the most sound argument. We can interpret all we want here, but ultimately it does nothing to society at large.
>Or think of it like this: what if I “purchase a license” to use a hammer, and as part of that license the hammer’s owner can ask me to return the hammer at a time of their choosing. Am I buying the hammer, or am I renting the hammer? Don’t get distracted by the nonsense of “buying a license to use the hammer”. What am I doing with the hammer?
sounds like something that can happen if you tweak it slightly. s/Hammer/Gun (albiet we now enter controversial territory) and you see how it settles in. You need a license to own a gun, you can buy and own a gun, but you can have that gun revoked for crimes that may not even be related to the gun itself.
People would still say you own the gun and have a license to operate one. But you can have it taken away. A bit strong armed for a metaphor to video games, but this is more to show that the model of ownership and revoking of possession isn't necessarily stuck in the digital realm.
>> “Purchasing a license” is lawyerese nonsense. How can I buy something and then be arbitrarily deprived of it by the person who sold it to me at their whim?
> same way with a physical license. I have a license to drive, I still need to pay every year to renew my license...
What do you mean? Did you "purchase a driver's license"? Have you ever heard someone use that phrase?
I didn't buy my license, no (or maybe I did in various misc. fees back then. But that's not the largest barrier to owning one). But I do need to purchase the ability to operate my car on my country's roads. Which effectively means my license costs money in some way or form to be usable.
And no, I've never heard anyone say they "bought a license". But I've never heard anyone say they "rented a movie in perpetualty" either. Real life conversation generally isn't that verbose.
After one day's thought, "rented a movie in perpetuity" is almost as bonkers as "bought a driver's license". Yesterday, I was only asking for more explanation why you introduced the latter into the conversation.
> But I do need to purchase the ability to operate my car on my country's roads. Which effectively means my license costs money in some way or form to be usable.
I see a gulf between "costs money" and "bought". FWIW, I paid registration fees for my driver's license -- aka taxes.
No, everybody who bought a digital movie rented it in perpetuity (until license is withdrawn), so the point is just getting people to use a different language by changing the button
I never ever read or heard "buying a driver license", but I "buy" videogames and audiobooks every time, even though it's a license, and that's the problem
Or think of it like this: what if I “purchase a license” to use a hammer, and as part of that license the hammer’s owner can ask me to return the hammer at a time of their choosing. Am I buying the hammer, or am I renting the hammer? Don’t get distracted by the nonsense of “buying a license to use the hammer”. What am I doing with the hammer?