Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

> Its more than just audio. Watching movies sucks; you now pay full price to effectively indefinitely rent movies, and have them taken away at any time.

This has always been the case, even when you "owned" the physical media. Owning a CD, DVD or even vinyl copy of audio/video did not mean you owned the content. It was always just a delivery mechanism. It always came with legal wording to state you didn't own the content, and were only allowed to listen/view in a private setting. You were not allowed to take the music and play it in public, you were not allowed to show the video to large groups of people (including in your own home).

Your OS is the same way. You don't own the software. You only pay for a license granting use of it on one computer.

View on HN

I disagree with you. When you “owned” a physical cd, you had to ability to sell it. When you own the digital version it is not possible to resell it.

You can disagree with me, but the legal aspect is still the same. You owned the physical delivery mechanism, and the single use license that delivery mechanism represented. Sure, you could sell that, but the point is still the same in that you never owned the content, legally speaking.

You never owned the copyright on the content, but you did own the thing. Not a "single-use license". Owning a CD is exactly like owning a book, in that way.

Grandparent was correct. Copyright law only allowed for private home exhibition of the music/movie. VHS tapes even came with a warning from the FBI. As in, the people who might show up at your house if you copied the movie or showed it to a large group of people.

Reselling of media is long established as legal in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Not only is it legal to resell media, but that FBI warning is not from the FBI at all, at least up until 2003. The FBI had nothing to do with that message before. They did finally authorize the use of their seal in 2003. Before that, just typical Hollywood trickery to scare people.

Yes and no, you need a different type of license for a public exhibition independent of the underlying media license.

Think of it as an underlying Windows OEM license that allows you to run Windows. If you want to hook computers together with an AD, you need client access licenses.

(Bear with me, This is the first time I’ve used Microsoft as an example to clarify a license issue.)

Point is, there’s a distinction between a public and private performance. I believe that different stakeholders get paid for each.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com