[latepaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, it's a red herring. You are trying to argue philosophy, but for the most part, in real life, everyone knows exactly what you are buying.

I'm really not. I'm asking you to define your terms. What have you bought? What laws cover it and what rights do they give you?

To use your example, a digital copy of The Shining. You have the right to watch that digital copy whenever you feel like it. There is no difference between that and a copy that's on a VHS tape.

Mostly true. There's the matter of the tape itself.

The vendor can't restrict you to watching it only from 5 pm to 10 pm on a Saturday or Sunday, regardless of what their assertion is, unless of course, the only way to watch it is to stream it from their site.

They could do that, they probably just couldn't enforce it. The truth is that you gain a right to have a copy of the movie based on the terms the copyright holder dictates. I can imagine it would be possible to write terms that are legally unenforceable but I believe they would be more niche than even your example.

Once again, a company can assert all they want. Doesn't mean it will be upheld by a jury.

True but you say "assert" as if everyone knows what buying an intangible thing like a digital download is and the company have flouted it. It's not like buying a physical object. I've given an explanation based on copyright law - which equates to licensing. If you have a different one explain it, tell me what it's based on. If it doesn't involve licensing then it won't involve copyright.

There is a reason that in iTunes you have a choice between renting (i.e. your licensing) and buying. Buying is more expensive, but you get to keep the movie.

Two different forms of licensing. Two different sets of terms. One gives you a short-term license the other indefinite.

What is it that you are keeping? You accuse me of arguing philosophy, my counter-argument is that you're not being concrete enough. You're handwaving - "everybody knows" etc.