• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You realize that that paper is literally calling the entire premise you’re arguing for as “unrecognized by law” and is an argument that the law needs to change, right? It doesn’t even sort of support you on the current status. It’s a giant call to action to change the law.

    What you own is a license. I’m literally all cases. There is legally nothing in between copyright assignment and a license in any scenario. It does not exist, and is not capable of existing without completely rewritten copyright law.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You can argue whatever you want.

        But if you try to resell the “single copy” of digital content you supposedly own from any of the platforms with that marketing lie, every one of them will aggressively take action. And they’ll win every time.

        Because you don’t and can’t own a copy of a file and don’t have the inherent rights ownership provides.