Why is it legal to buy and sell used books/discs but illegal to buy and sell used digital files?
Why is it legal to buy and sell used books/discs but illegal to buy and sell used digital files?
this contradiction always confused me. either way the official company is "losing a sale" and not getting the money, right?
You're viewing a single thread.
Legally speaking you don't own the digital files, you have a license but you don't actually own it.
So, why can’t I buy and sell license?
Ehhh they’re technically wrong. You don’t own the media with physical formats either. There’s just nothing they can do about it if they want it out of your home.
In a way, NFTs were supposed to solve this.
That was the only argument about NFTs that seemed interesting. But instead we got stupid cartoon monkeys.
Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. "Nfts" bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright... And a whole host of stupidity.
They aren’t quite the same thing though. DRM only applies as a copyright protection tool so copyright owners can restrict who has access to a given piece of digital content. NFTs don’t provide that access right but instead act as a method of logging who has ownership of a given piece of content via a decentralized ledger.
The use-case from my understanding was that an NFT would be useful for updating the DRM access rights for someone assuming the content was sold and transferred to someone else. In addition, it would allow for the copyright holder themselves to continue to profit off of resold digital assets.
Essentially, that would mean DRM and NFTs would play hand-in-hand. An NFT isn’t much use if the server handling DRM and content delivery is gone. And the decentralized nature means that if the original DRM protocol or copyright owner changed, ownership would be easily transferable assuming the content is made available by the new holder or across products, like in-game skins.
Think of it this way: you bought a movie on Amazon that was later removed from Amazon due to a contract dispute. An NFT would give you the ability to own that movie on another platform, like Google Play instead of repurchasing it. Though at the end of the day, it’s all about creating a market for artificial digital scarcity.
Is it the best solution? Dunno, I’m sure there’s something better and more efficient that’s possible. Or the high seas lol
Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn't come up with a new idea. This isn't some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing... Which again, isn't a new concept either.
Right now, everything you described... Literally all of it... Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.
Permanently Deleted
Sorry. I apologize.
It's frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again...
The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.
I don't know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don't know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.
Yeah, I know how DRM works. Not gonna lie, not a fan of how condescending you are being. Like, I’m definitely not an NFT/crypto bro and quite frankly don’t care enough to continue this further. ✌️
I... Mean... You obviously don't, but whatever.
I believe there was a recent EU ruling that mandated that this must be allowed.
I'm not sure of the details, however.
You literally can. Check out kinguin
Often, licence agreements stipulate that they are not transferable and thus you have contractually agreed not to resell them. To what extent this is enforceable is... contentious. Different courts have struggled with the topic and have ruled both directions on the issue.
Copyright law as written was not designed for immaterial goods in any way, and the DMCA has done little to improve that. So effectively the judicial branch is in limbo. Corporate America is content to leave the confusion as is. They can just adopt an interpretation of the law that is maximally beneficial to them, and consumers generally don't have the resources to challenge that interpretation.
That is no different with CDs, DVDs, etc. It’s written on all of them. It’s a limited license, which is why you can’t host screenings and charge people with your physical media.