Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The fact there is no viable solution is why digital content is licensed
|
Content, digital or not, is licensed because we have intellectual property laws that give the creators and consumers of the content varying rights.
The reason the licenses address DIFFERENT issues and give DIFFERENT rights concerning digital stuff than they typically do concerning physical stuff is for all the reasons we're talking about. Put simply: because they are DIFFERENT.
That's what people who dwell on the "You are not the owner" nonsense always seem to be missing. They are never really clear on what
exactly it is they think they should 'own' or on what they think 'owning it' really means they would be allowed to do when applied to the thing--or digital abstraction-- in question.
I've said it before (ad nauseam, everytime this issue comes up here) and I'll say it again. "Own vs. license" is a red herring, a smokescreen, that billows ignorance and distracts from meaningful changes getting discussed.
The issue is not own vs. license. Never was, never will be. The issue what rights and uses we want to have.
You want to transfer your ebooks to other people. Say so. You want to share them. Say so. You want to be able to format-shift and space-shift. Say so.
And then we can get that message to our legislators and regulators, and adjust the laws to make it so.
ApK