Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aldipower | Hacker News Reader

"It’s funny how “ownership” in the digital world has become an illusion. You don’t really own your apps, your music, or even your tools anymore."

That's your decision. I've published an music album on Bandcamp. You can buy it, I'll send you a real physical tape and you can _download_ high quality FLAC you own then.

If you like to own things, you have all the possibilities.

But I agree, we maybe tend to forget about high quality stuff, if we consume conveniently low quality streaming content for example on Spotify.

View on HN

That may be true for your music, but it doesn't refute the author's original statement.

It’s a descision everyone makes, in almost all cases (okay, maybe only in few mobile app cases) "ownable" alternatives exist.

> You don’t really own your apps, your music, or even your tools anymore

This is the more general statement, once again, alternatives exist. I own almost all my apps and tools, and 100% of my music. Either because they are free, or because I bought them. Sometimes I’d would be easier to go the other way, but it’s still (mostly) a choice.

They exist, and then they become subscription only. That is literally what the post is about.

If I have FLAC or mp3 files, they cannot become a subscription.

If I have a working binary that does not need internet, it cannot become a subscription.

If I have invested in making open source solutions work, then I can also figure out ways to continue to own my tools, even if the company goes the subscription way.

Guess you haven't downloaded any self-updating executables then? They are very annoying.

Or executables that check silently for a server and pretend to be transparent but really aren't. Very common with music production apps.

Yes I have, but was talking about that:

"binary that does not need internet"

Yes, you can snapshot your entire life and try to have it be isolated from online. I know because I do this all the time, but the reality is the world moves forward, and the point of the post is that the trend is towards these customer hostile patterns and away from ownership. As someone focused on digital sovereignty, I very much notice this trend, so I think the point is valid.

Oh for sure. I struggle with keeping my offline workable music collection up to date vs just using spotify. But the pain point of not having music with no internet (the laughable limited option of spotify "download" does not count) is strong enough for me to do it regulary.

(Also I like working offline when I can. Less distractions.)

> If I have a working binary that does not need internet, it cannot become a subscription.

Pluton chip and signature/attestation requirements have entered the chat.

The point of the article is that Goodnotes stopped selling a lifetime purchase version of the app and a lot of other products go this route. You can't buy things that can't be bought.

It does mention music in the quoted part though. And even regarding goodnotes, it’s a choice to use a tool like that. There are *many* note taking apps.

Not just apps but methods, too. And they're all fishing in the same pool, and they're all trying to sell the same product (a subscription), and they're all trying real hard to integrate AI, after making extra money from selling your notes (or a distillation or statistical analysis thereof).

Not all. Not even close to all. There are tons with no or no mandatory (e. g. Obsidian) subscription.

And there are also tons with no forced or any AI (though plugins by the community kinda to show that many users do want AI)

> I've published an music album on Bandcamp

Bandcamp is a real treasure for this reason. It and buying physical CDs are the only ways I buy music anymore. Streaming is for suckers.

This is why I collect vinyl records, make my own cassette tapes and have a fairly huge DAS drive with all my media (movies, music, photos, etc). Ironically, I use Plex (non free), but I can pivot very easily if needed.

But even buying your album comes with limitations.

I can not copy and redestribute copies. I can not play it in public spaces for an audience with further ado, etc.

The concept of owning is, rightfully, changing. We are a lot of people who use this planet, and the purist view of ownership simply does not make sense.

You can not own a part of a river to dump chemicals, just for thst to flow to the next owner down stream.

> can not play it in public spaces for an audience with further ado, etc.

Ah that can of worms. When i would play music out loud in the office, the company has to pay a fee to the copyright reimbursement foundation and a fee to the same system representing the artists (actually the studios, but semantics). And that would be for every employee no matter who heard it and if it was audible in public spaces they count for the max allowable. And that comes on top of the fee I'm already paying (double tax, yay). There is a reason most companies pretend they don't know about this system or ask you to use your own devices and headphones.

Who is auditing your office for music copyright issues and why?

Example: in Australia there is an organisation named APRA AMCOS. A friend had a job with them, his job was to visit businesses, see if they were playing music, take evidence of such, and then that business would receive an invoice for the right to play the music.

There were many employees of APRA doing this, in every state, and many cease+desist/lawsuits.

The case was clear cut - you play the music, you paid a fee.

https://www.apraamcos.com.au/

(I guess many countries have similar organisations)

Are you obligated to let them into your private office?

> The concept of owning is, rightfully, changing. We are a lot of people who use this planet, and the purist view of ownership simply does not make sense.

This is a bizarre statement. On the one hand, property rights are considered a fundamental human right, and for good reason. And on the other, digital goods don't take up space - no matter how many copies exist. What bearing does the number of people on the planet have in light of this?

All I see is excuses for exploitation by our corporate overlords.

The puristic part of ownership totally makes sense. I may own a rifle, but may not shoot people with it. Makes sense? Yes.

I have zero qualms within myself copying, saving backups, and playing media anywhere and to anyone. I treat lots of ridiculous laws as other people's opinions, and I believe millions of people do the same, and none of us ever get "caught".

No, I don't have all the possibilities. I can own movies in physical form, but I can't own the movies I want to own. And it can be even worse. Here I can watch Disney/Pixar movies wonderfully dubbed into local language in cinemas with my grandchildren, but even Disney+ subscription doesn't have these audio tracks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com