For the First Time, You Can Actually Own the Digital Comics You Buy

[tompe]

Originally Posted by gmw

Fideicommiss is an entail - it relates to inheritance, so "resell" doesn't apply (you didn't buy it in the first place, you inherited it with the entail). It can also be said that you don't actually own the property, you only have a life interest in it.

And it also can be said that you own the property.

I am talking about the legal concept of owning and not the ideal philosophical concept. And I am not even sure that the philosophical concept requires all the sub properties that are usually listed in philosophical definitions of ownership.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by tompe

And it also can be said that you own the property.

I am talking about the legal concept of owning and not the ideal philosophical concept. And I am not even sure that the philosophical concept requires all the sub properties that are usually listed in philosophical definitions of ownership.

I'm not clear on legal or philosophical definitions of ownership. This is Wikipedia's article on the subject of Fee tail (Entail). Notice that it speaks about not even being able to use the property for security on a loan.

But legal niceties aside, the original point still stands. A property subject to entail was not purchased (was not sold to the ostensible owner suffering under the entail), it was inherited, so the question of being able re-sell it isn't applicable. Which still leaves us looking for an example of where you can purchase a property and not be entitled to sell it again.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm not clear on legal or philosophical definitions of ownership. This is Wikipedia's article on the subject of Fee tail (Entail). Notice that it speaks about not even being able to use the property for security on a loan.

But legal niceties aside, the original point still stands. A property subject to entail was not purchased (was not sold to the ostensible owner suffering under the entail), it was inherited, so the question of being able re-sell it isn't applicable. Which still leaves us looking for an example of where you can purchase a property and not be entitled to sell it again.

I think Ferrari had those restrictions for a while, you were not allow to resell their cars for 2 years. Due to long delivery times the buyers could have resold them for more than double the regular price. In business there are many restrictions on who you can sell to --- many products are limited for sale to US customers only. I am not sure if those restrictions could be enforced legally or just by the threat of cutting off future supplies.

An example with obvious legal implication are antiques of dubious origins. The were perfectly legal to buy for many years, but now they can't be sold, even if there is no proof that they were looted or stolen.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I think Ferrari had those restrictions for a while, you were not allow to resell their cars for 2 years. Due to long delivery times the buyers could have resold them for more than double the regular price. In business there are many restrictions on who you can sell to --- many products are limited for sale to US customers only. I am not sure if those restrictions could be enforced legally or just by the threat of cutting off future supplies.

An example with obvious legal implication are antiques of dubious origins. The were perfectly legal to buy for many years, but now they can't be sold, even if there is no proof that they were looted or stolen.

I imagine the Ferrari (and similar) items are contractual, as will be the various business arrangements (or sale within the U.S. may be to fit in with U.S. export laws). But I'm not sure I understand the antique situation you describe - do you have a link that describes it in any more detail. (I would have assumed that, unless the antiques were being held as part of an investigation, they could still be sold, albeit not with any claims as to their authenticity.)

I just noticed that I'm sitting in front of another example myself . I've just finished eating one of those mini-chocolate bars that you buy in packs of a dozen in a bag. The wrapper around the bar says "Not for Individual Sale". I wonder if that is legally enforceable - or maybe it's covered by all the regulations surround the sale of foods.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by gmw

I imagine the Ferrari (and similar) items are contractual, as will be the various business arrangements (or sale within the U.S. may be to fit in with U.S. export laws). But I'm not sure I understand the antique situation you describe - do you have a link that describes it in any more detail. (I would have assumed that, unless the antiques were being held as part of an investigation, they could still be sold, albeit not with any claims as to their authenticity.)

I just noticed that I'm sitting in front of another example myself . I've just finished eating one of those mini-chocolate bars that you buy in packs of a dozen in a bag. The wrapper around the bar says "Not for Individual Sale". I wonder if that is legally enforceable - or maybe it's covered by all the regulations surround the sale of foods.

I would have to look it up on the antiques, seems that the year 1975 is key. That year some international agreement was signed and items that left the country of origin before that year are being treated differently from those that left later. You need different documentation before/after the cutoff date. There have been some items which were pulled from auctions because of this just recently. (Khmer/Egyptian/Chinese). The question is not authenticity, but if the original owner obtained them and exported them legally or if they were "looted". Even if they original foreign owner purchased them they might still be considered illegal.

As for the Ferrari limitations being contractual, the same applies to ebooks/software. You sign and you are entering in a contract with the seller in which you agree not to resell the item.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

[...]As for the Ferrari limitations being contractual, the same applies to ebooks/software. You sign and you are entering in a contract with the seller in which you agree not to resell the item.

Different situation. You never actually buy the ebook or software, you only buy a licence to use it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by gmw

Different situation. You never actually buy the ebook or software, you only buy a licence to use it.

No, you buy the e-book or software. You own it. You are just restricted by the license by what you can do with it.

This issue is sort of confusing because there is no one platonic ideal of ownership. "Ownership" means a collection of rights with respect to property. (Or, as they say in law school, property is a bundle of sticks).

What that means is that when you own something, you have a variety of rights you can exercise with respect to that property ("sticks"). But you don't have all of the sticks. No one has all of the sticks.

I own my house (in fee simple). This gives me a lot of rights with respect to this property; most significantly, I have the right to exclude people, the right to sell the property, and the right to pass it to my heirs (by will or otherwise).

But there are a lot of sticks I don't have. I don't have the right to install gas pumps in my front yard. I don't have the right to make loud noises that annoy my neighbors. I don't have the right to make major renovations to my house (although I may be able to obtain that right by following certain procedures). I don't have the right to install non-standard electrical wiring in my house, or to install an outhouse in the back yard.

I do have the right to rent my house (although many owners don't), but I am restricted as to how many people I can rent it to (i.e., how many people can live there) and what rooms I can rent (I can't rent the basement as a bedroom because it doesn't have a separate exit).

If I belonged to a homeowner's association, there would be many more restrictions on my ownership rights, including the right to paint my house the color I wanted.

If I didn't own my house in fee simple but owned life estate in the property, I would have most of the same sticks, but not all of them. Most significantly, I would not have the right to pass the house on to my heirs. I would have the right to exclude others from the property, and I would have the right to sell my ownership interest (i.e., I could sell my life estate in the property, meaning that someone else would own the property until I died).

Even renters have an ownership interest in the property they are renting: they have the right to possession of the property and the right to exclude others from the property.

Owners of paperbooks have the right to possession, the right to exclude others from reading their copy (only), the right to sale, and the right to pass by inheritance. They don't have the right to sell copies of the book.

Owners of e-books have the right to possession and the right to exclude other from reading their copy (only). There is usually not an unrestricted right to create and share copies, although there may be the right to do this if no money is charged and the creator receives appropriate attribution. More commonly, people may have the right to share a certain number of copies with a limited number of people, such as other people on your account. You may also have a more restricted right to share your copy with others, such as in the Kindle lending scheme.

The fundamental right of ownership is typically the right to exclude others, although when we talk about ownership as opposed to other type of property interests, we tend to focus on the right of alienation (i.e., the right to sell or otherwise dispose of the property). That's because a very fundamental part society is based on the leasehold/fee simple distinction (i.e., do I rent or do I buy?) Although rental also implies the right to temporary possession, too, in most cases - a distinction not present in the license vs. ownership discussion. Unfortunately, "Do I rent, buy, or accept a land grant from the mayor in exchange for an oath of fealty and promise of military service?" is rarely asked today.

But if you really want to get down into the nitty gritty of ownership of e-books, I don't think that trying to distinguish between "ownership" and "licensing" is very meaningful. For one thing, having a "license" for an e-book says nothing about what specific rights you have with respect to the e-book. Some licenses may be transferred themselves, and may give you the right to sell whatever is licensed, typically on the condition that the purchase accept the license and that you not keep a copy of the licensed property.

So saying that an e-book is "licensed" rather than "owned" doesn't clarify anything in the way that "rented" vs. "owned" might.

More importantly, though, is the fact that for most purposes, people "own" e-books; they just don't have the right to sell them.

I "own" my prescription drugs - there's no other good way to describe my relationship to them - even though I don't have the right to sell them or even give them away to others. But I have the right to permanent possession of the pills; I can exclude others from using the pills; and I can destroy the pills if I want. Ownership of certain firearms and explosives works the same way, I think.

[Katsunami]

The entire problem is that digital-only content does not come wrapped in a physical package.

Let's say, I buy a CD. Then I own the CD, but I don't own the (digital) content that is on the CD. If I wish to sell the CD, I *have* to sell the content; if I wish to sell the content, then I *have* to sell the CD. It's the same with a paper book. Yes, you own the book, but not the content. If you'd own the content, you could do whatever you like with it, such as copy and change it and then sell copies again as often as you like.

If you purchase the same content, but as a set of FLAC files, then you have only the content; you don't have the CD anymore. Therefore, it becomes impossible to resell: it can never, ever be checked if the seller did not stash a copy somewhere else. Even if there's DRM on the original files, it may have been removed. Same with an ebook.

Yes, it would be possible to rip the CD and then sell it, but it would be the same as selling the FLAC files while stashing away your own copy. You could do the same with a paper book. (For the sake of argument, I assume that there are OCR-scanners that can "rip" a book like a CD-drive can rip a CD, and that this doesn't cost you have a year to create your ebook.)

This is the reason why console manufacturers are trying to make consoles only play games that are registered to that console's account. Ideally, they'd like to sell (license) you the game without you ever getting a CD/DVD-copy in your hands, and they'd like that you can only play it while the console is connected to the internet.

Same with movies and music. They tried with music already: it failed. They're trying with games now, and it's failing. This setup is getting a huge backlash. Sony says it's going to try this with 4K content (implementing a permanent online check for each movie released by Sony or played on a Sony 4K device, and connecting a movie to a device on first play); it's doomed to fail. People are already railing against it.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. The only thing that works, is what GOG.com is doing. Sell cheap. Sell complete. (With soundtracks and all.) Sell without hassle. Make buying easy. So cheap, so complete, and so easy that even trying to pirate the stuff is not going to be worthwhile.

WHY would I try to pirate a game, when I can get it at GOG.com for $5, complete with maps, soundtracks, up-to-date installer (with all patches and expansions integrated, and for older games, fixed to run on modern operating systems, or having an emulator built right into the installer, which is used completely automatically and transparant, without you even knowing it's there), no CD-checks, no DRM, the possibility to install it on as many computers as I want, as long as I own them, have a support crew and forum in case of problems or questions or just wanting to banter about the game... $5 is worth al that. **** piracy, with chance to catch virusses, malware, incomplete games, no-working cracks that make the game crash, no soundtracks....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, you buy the e-book or software. You own it. You are just restricted by the license by what you can do with it.

This issue is sort of confusing because there is no one platonic ideal of ownership. "Ownership" means a collection of rights with respect to property. (Or, as they say in law school, property is a bundle of sticks).

What that means is that when you own something, you have a variety of rights you can exercise with respect to that property ("sticks"). But you don't have all of the sticks. No one has all of the sticks.

Exactly. So the original argument that it could not be ownership since you could not re-sell it is not valid. Which was the only thing I commented about.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you give an example of that?

There aren't many cases but there are cases.

Google Bans Users From Reselling and Lending Glass

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But if you really want to get down into the nitty gritty of ownership of e-books, I don't think that trying to distinguish between "ownership" and "licensing" is very meaningful. For one thing, having a "license" for an e-book says nothing about what specific rights you have with respect to the e-book. Some licenses may be transferred themselves, and may give you the right to sell whatever is licensed, typically on the condition that the purchase accept the license and that you not keep a copy of the licensed property.

So saying that an e-book is "licensed" rather than "owned" doesn't clarify anything in the way that "rented" vs. "owned" might.

More importantly, though, is the fact that for most purposes, people "own" e-books; they just don't have the right to sell them.

I think that's precisely why it is useful to distinguish between license and own. Or at least to not use the word "own".

Typically on MR when this comes up you get people saying they "own" their ebooks regardless of what Amazon or whoever may say. What they are really doing is arguing that they should be able to do a similar set of things with their ebooks as they can with their paper books - lend them out, resell them. People use the word "own" because it implies a set of rights/utilities that they want to claim. By deliberately not using that word we can try to highlight the very real differences - there are things you cannot do legally, even physically, with ebooks (and things you can that can't be done with paper ones).

You can make the argument that they are using the word "own" incorrectly but I don't think that gets us very far. People are still going to use own to mean that and unless you want to be misunderstood, or explain it everytime you use it, you'll probably want to too - at least some of the time.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by =X=

There aren't many cases but there are cases.

Google Bans Users From Reselling and Lending Glass

beta hardware or developer hardware has restrictions that retailed product to the general public does not. there are liabilities with not thoroughly tested hardware that beta testers /developers sign on for that a person they sell it on to wouldnt understand and issues that could damage a brand if the "general public" got hold of unfinished product.

same thing with car trials in the past from the trials involving turbine powered cars, to hydrogen cars, to electric" who killed the electric car" programs.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, you buy the e-book or software. You own it. You are just restricted by the license by what you can do with it.
[...]
So saying that an e-book is "licensed" rather than "owned" doesn't clarify anything in the way that "rented" vs. "owned" might.
[...]

You are, of course, quite right. You do "own it" - if you describe "it" (the ebook) as the set of rights granted by the license, just as the publisher and author continue to own the various rights that they have reserved. The thing is that in the common (rather than legal) vernacular, when a person speaks of owning an ebook they are generally speaking of the content of that ebook, not the abstract rights. Similarly when a person is speaking of a house they are speaking of the physical building as "it", rather than the rights that may be divided one way or another.

I believe it is this reason that you find continuing common reference to "owned" vs "licensed" - however imprecise that may be legally. To tell a non-legal-minded person that they "own" a widget and they will make certain basic assumptions, and this will most often include the presumption that they can sell it (even if there may be restrictions on exactly where and how).

So if you tell a non-legal-minded person that they own an ebook they will go away with a false impression based on their own internal assumptions. I see this as essentially the same as telling a renter that they own the property, when in fact the property in this case is merely a set of rights that doesn't include all the things the person is likely to associate with ownership.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

You are, of course, quite right. You do "own it" - if you describe "it" (the ebook) as the set of rights granted by the license, just as the publisher and author continue to own the various rights that they have reserved. The thing is that in the common (rather than legal) vernacular, when a person speaks of owning an ebook they are generally speaking of the content of that ebook, not the abstract rights. Similarly when a person is speaking of a house they are speaking of the physical building as "it", rather than the rights that may be divided one way or another.

I believe it is this reason that you find continuing common reference to "owned" vs "licensed" - however imprecise that may be legally. To tell a non-legal-minded person that they "own" a widget and they will make certain basic assumptions, and this will most often include the presumption that they can sell it (even if there may be restrictions on exactly where and how).

So if you tell a non-legal-minded person that they own an ebook they will go away with a false impression based on their own internal assumptions. I see this as essentially the same as telling a renter that they own the property, when in fact the property in this case is merely a set of rights that doesn't include all the things the person is likely to associate with ownership.

I agree with you, but the fact remains that the claim made by the original poster (or the source he's quoting), that "For the First Time, You Can Actually Own the Digital Comics You Buy" is utterly wrong and misleading.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you, but the fact remains that the claim made by the original poster (or the source he's quoting), that "For the First Time, You Can Actually Own the Digital Comics You Buy" is utterly wrong and misleading.

That might be so. But that does not make your original argument valid. Just wanted to say that since it seemed in the thread that some people assumed that just because you do not agree that an argument is valid you cannot agree that the conclusion of the argument holds anyway.

But I do not understand why it is utterly wrong and misleading. Why do I not own the ebook file in the same way that I own a paper book? I can move the file around and I can destroy it which I can also do with a paper book and which are two properties that can be enough to define ownership.