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

[gmw]

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.

Though if you take it in legal-speak what is wrong with it is not the "own" aspect, it is the "first time" aspect. That is: You do actually own the rights given to you when you purchased the license - but since that has always been true so this can't be the first time. But as we agree, that is not the way most people will interpret the phrasing - which makes it wrong from the "own" perspective.

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

Strangely enough most people had the right idea about their paper book without ever really understanding it. They did/do own the paper and ink, the object they could see and touch, and most people appeared to understand that they weren't supposed to copy it - even if they never really understood the reasons.

The neat thing about the paper book was that most of the "licence" issues were implicitly managed in the packaging (hard to copy, could be shared one-at-a-time, and even resold - though the legality of that is open to question in some circles). The thing with ebooks is that there is no physical thing for the person to look at and say they own, and they transfer their previous ideals to the visible content displayed on their screens. But that is no longer helpful. Now copying is so easy that it happens without the user even knowing it (copied from disk to memory, portions at a time from memory to screen and so on). Now the user must be aware that of which copies are legal and which copies are not - a differentiation that is most commonly distinguished in the common vernacular as "licensing".

The difficulty in these conversions is finding the meeting place between the common use of these terms and the legal use of these terms. Your example of an entail (Fideicommiss) was a good demonstration of how the common understanding of ownership can become convoluted in the eyes of the law, and you only have to read some historical novels (Jane Austen springs immediately to mind) to see how such convolutions could work out.

[replica145]

I came here to talk about how many brilliant comics Image is currently publishing and of course we are arguing over DRM :P

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by replica145

I came here to talk about how many brilliant comics Image is currently publishing and of course we are arguing over DRM :P

The topic of this thread is the (highly doubtful) claim that this publisher has introduced some change in the ownership of the comics that they publish. Do you agree with that claim?

[JAcheson]

Originally Posted by replica145

I came here to talk about how many brilliant comics Image is currently publishing and of course we are arguing over DRM :P

How many brilliant comics are Image currently publishing?

I don't care to split hairs over the meaning of "own," I just like the idea of spending money and getting a CBZ file. I also like the creators getting paid.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The topic of this thread is the (highly doubtful) claim that this publisher has introduced some change in the ownership of the comics that they publish. Do you agree with that claim?

If you would have taken the time to read the article the OP posted, the claim is not far fetched. Image comics do talk about ownership and how comixology model is broken. If you go to their website the do not mentioned licensing of comics. But treat ownership as owning the file. They also prohibit the distribution of the file or any parts of the file. Also their comics do not have DRM.

Personally I like their stance this is what true ownership is, not leasing to users charging full price and using deceptive words like "buy".

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by 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.

While I agree with the spirit of your post, I don't agree on the concept that you don't own the content on the CD.
I don't see how digital content on a CD is any different than digital content on a HDD. They both contain digital content on a filesystem. There's not really any significant difference IMO except how the product is distributed (via download or on specially printed discs).

Anyway,
In my mind, owning something includes the rights to do with it, personally, whatever you want. Turn a book into confetti, rip a CD to mp3, loan a book to a friend, hand your collection down to your kids when you die, whatever).

DRM-free is the only only way to get that in the digital-download era. Anything else is just a lease of indeterminate length.