We're moving to a model where we spend the same, but their value is zero when considering the value of our assets.
1. An eBook distributor 2. A "PayPal replacement" that let's you send $$$ to authors.
They theoretically have a monopoly on #1, but in practice piracy exists and potentially does it better.
They don't and can't stop people from setting up a platform for sending $$$ to authors - in fact, you could even have a database of authors, their books and the RRP of those books, and an embeddable button to pay the author an RRP's worth. That could then be embedded on arbitrary piracy sites.
The piracy sites could be shut down, but realistically the pirate sites are too portable to be shut down for long, and private trackers make some sites impractical to shut down at all.
Was this a permanent unlock, or do you need a subscription to unlock the rear heated seats?
What is worrying is that these aren't clearly explained when you make the purchase. And it's really down to the company's policy, which if all companies do the same, the consumer ends up having no choice.
0: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-disables-autopilot-on-...
Do you think your kids will want to read their ancestors’ books? I have watched even ardent bibliophiles among my friends gradually lose interest in books, because they grow accustomed to consuming snackable content on the internet, and I have little confidence that books will be a mainstream pastime for following generations.
To your point, however, I do agree. I think one of the major benefits of physical media (or even digital media as long as it's entirely self-hosted) is that you can enjoy it entirely without surveillance, and that it's much more resistant to censorship. Being able to read about and understand how people lived, thought, and created in the past is incredibly important, and it's something we should preserve for the benefit of future generations, even if they might sometimes contain things that one might not necessarily agree with today.
Where did I say that? Obviously it is nice to be able to hand things down to one's children. But what I am questioning is whether the envisioned scenario (children of the future being enamored by dad or granddad's old books) is really likely to happen.
Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but how are we to know that with certainty today? The whole point is that if the opportunity is taken away now, then that guarantees that they won't be able to in the future. Beyond that, they would also lose the possibility of otherwise sharing them with someone else who might be interested in reading them, and I think that would be a loss as well.
At the same time, most every decent library should own a few copies of them. They're all well known, at least in their industries niche.
I don't have a specific example in mind, but I'm sure the same applies to books people have inherited from friends and family. People write all sorts of interesting notes in books, tuck photos in between the pages, etc. These items offer a connection that a library book or its digital equivalent (often) cannot.
I'll just quote what I wrote the other day[0] on the topic of "throwing money at things" instead of doing or owning things yourself:
"Why would you own things and accept responsibility for maintaining them, if you could just throw money at the service provider and have the thing be present when it's needed? Of course the thing will be extremely limited in what you can do with it, subject to Terms&Conditions, but why would you want to do anything non-standard with stuff? There's always another service you can throw money at to solve the same problem.
What's the end-game here? That we specialize into sub-species of humans, forever stuck in one role, with zero autonomy? No longer building wealth, we'll only be allocating the flow of money - from what Society gives us in reward for our work, straight to Services of said Society? Will we become specialized cells of the meta-multicellular organism Society becomes?
I can see how we're on the path towards that reality, and I absolutely hate it."
--
And the main problem is (imho) that people just seem to hate responsibility. It all stems from that, at the core it's all just shifting responsibility onto something or someone who will take it.
The government taxes pay for services which can directly and indirectly benefit you. For example, they pay for providing a force which will help against unlawful intruders, pay for the manpower who will help you should your house catch on fire, pay for the maintenance of roads, and so forth.
Amazon's revenue... lines the pockets of Amazon's investors.
But I agree also with your statement.
have a look at leaseholds in UK.