Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lol, this will just go down the prop 65 route: everything has a warning and no one's the wiser

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseydisagreesuperspeed: Most people don't understand they own nothing yet. The redbox people were melting down when the curtain got pulled back on what exactly their purchases meant and I assume others are the same.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel like when they cant say purchase anymore people will actively seek out honest purchasing

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Like when you say crypto investment and people will expect anything else other than a rugpull

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A fool is born every second, but it would deminish the profits enough that the model might change

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

i feel u overestimate how much the average consumer will care.

access to consoomering content >>>> how that access is granted

i just went back to pirating for tv/movies/books anyways.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why not? Place a big fat purchase in front of something with an asterix which says you are buying a license in fine print

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

idk "ownership" when it comes to nonphysical item is pretty vague anyways, and the amount of people who care to own is going down anyways cause zoomers are brought up in the world of subscriptions.

the only way this changes if the government sets rules for digital ownership, limiting the license verbiage: like right to download/copy for personal use (some do this), right to transfer ownership (literally no one right now), etc.

but this is kind of a 1st world problem that doesn't really impact general welfare, and all it does is restrict the amount of money companies can extract from consoomers

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>"ownership" when it comes to nonphysical item is pretty vague anyways,

No.

>and the amount of people who care to own is going down anyways cause zoomers

They are too stupid to understand. The kind of cattle regulations are designed to protect.

>the only way this changes if the government sets rules for digital ownership,

Like CA will. :marseycrusader:

>limiting the license verbiage: like right to download/copy for personal use (some do this), right to transfer ownership (literally no one right now)

I want the people responsible for modern "ownership" in prison too but I'll settle for this and more.

>doesn't really impact general welfare

Yes it does. It's even gotten into cars now and it's not stopping there. Subscribe for heated seats and all sorts of other features that are already implemented. Pay more, get less and they sell all your information besides.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Subscribe for heated seats and all sorts of other features that are already implemented. Pay more, get less and they sell all your information besides.

errr, this only applies to digital media??? what r u talking about? there's no way this has the impact u desire here. selling features based on price tiering is basic capitalism, even if that feature is just using ur current hardware to it's peak potential.

try another economic system if u want a different result. activist capitalism is r-slurred.

No.

yes. copyright is a very specific constitutionally granted power that the federal govt has. all digital media is subjected to copyright law, so no matter what these companies sell, it's still not something u concretely own, ur powers of simply copying it are always limited. and since transferring digital media is only done through what is technically copying information... even just transferring digital media will always be subject to that law.

ultimately, u don't own it because ur not the one with the copyright for it.

now i'm all for just getting rid of copyright, we never needed it, and it probably set us back academically a hundred years at least by now... but that's going to take broad societal consensus to achieve, it won't happen with activist govt.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

rrr, this only applies to digital media???

No they have features in the car and you need to subscribe to access :marseyraging:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no i mean this law only applies to purely digital goods, and it's exceedingly clear about that...

Digital good means a digital audiovisual work, digital audio work, digital book, digital code, or digital application or game, whether electronically or digitally delivered or accessed

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:pepere#eeeee:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyhacker:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Every post on Reddit should come with the disclaimer that it's a cancerous opinion from a birth defect in the state of California

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

California may rent you a muffin, but it's gonna keep the poo, unless you're careful. :marseypoosafe :

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No cap Monsanto makes you sign Terms and Agreements when you purchase seeds.

Stuff like, you cannot keep the seeds of the plants you grow.

I'm not sure how that works, but copyright is downright disgusting.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.