Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The tangability of Digital Purchases

This is topic The tangability of Digital Purchases in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006609

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-26-2012, 04:39 AM:

Digital Purchases- nothing to hold, nothing to keep.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-26-2012, 10:53 AM:

Working link

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-28-2012, 10:10 AM:

I recently bought a fabulous copy of Kay Neilsen's EAST OF THE SUN WEST OF THE MOON, first edition from 1914. It's beautiful, you can hold it in your hand and they aren't making it anymore. It's now mine. All those great Neilsen paintings on paper. Something you can get your mitts on. Texture and depth, since books ARE three-dimensional by their nature.

Sure is going to be fun collecting music and books in the future. . . Not! Here are your digital files and here is your backup. Nothing to fondle, nothing to hold, nothing to share with anyone else.

You don't got squat.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-28-2012, 10:54 AM:

Here is your backup? Silly rabbit -- whatever gave you the idea that you would get a backup?

One of my interests is software for certain obsolete computer platforms, and there is a great deal of that software that currently exists only due to the "pirates" from back then -- due to (apparently ineffective) copy protection efforts, various company bankruptcies/mergers, and a general not-giving-a-damn, a lot of the software would have been junked or simply lost. And that stuff is real and recent history from only 30 years ago -- a period where a lot less stuff was digital than today; imagine how much of it will remain after another 100 or 1000 years.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-28-2012, 06:17 PM:

I can't say that I really bemoan the loss of tangible items.

The last time I moved - a little more than 6 years ago, I wound up taking several boxes of books to the thrift store. Before they would accept them, they had to look through to make sure I had titles that would actually sell. Otherwise I would have had to take them to a recycling center or throw them in the trash.

It took a couple boxes to pack up my DVD collection. I actually considered buying a bunch of paper sleeves or a disc binder to keep the discs and toss the covers. I have the DVDs because I enjoy the movies, not because of the cases/covers. And when I lend someone a DVD, I would just as soon put it in a paper envelope just so I don't worry about a case coming back ok.

Maybe I'm just a different type of consumer, but I'm not really worried about the physical media; just the content of the media. Ideally I would like to spend more money on a nicer media player/viewer, and spend less for the content.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-28-2012, 07:11 PM:

I think the issue is that when I "buy" media, I expect to use that media for my own private use indefinitely...be that a book, CD, record, ebook...etc.

What the copyright police are doing is saying...well sort of...we'll let you have it until your widget dies. It is really a license for use on one widget rather than a license to you, per say.

One of the problems in the digitally perfect world is the notion of sharing. With physical media, if I loan you my CD, I no longer have use of that CD so only one copy exists for which a license was purchased. If you make a digitally perfect copy...that is when the issue arises. Yes, in analog we could record or records but there is a presumption that the quality will be less...particularly if one goes to something like cassettes. With digital...you have what I have. And you might just "loan" that to a friend with another digitally perfect copy. Compared to my dupe of a record onto cassette and you then duping a cassette...etc.

Mind you, the RIAA never wanted you doing the duping at all...there was no means to really stop it though and the law over the last several decades have gone really wacky in favor of copyright holders. I think people should have copyright protection but I think it should be on the order of patents...you get a period time to own/profit from it but eventually, it falls into public domain. That is how copyright was set up...it is society, after all, that sets up a copyright system to honor one's work. If society didn't give a darn, there is nothing one could do and presumably less and lower quality works would be created because there would be no financial incentive. However, this business of "life of the author plus 50 (or maybe it is 75) years" is absurd. Make more like patents...you get your 25-years or so...50-years tops and then it is public domain. That which created it will have eeked what ever profit there was in it. Oh...another thing...if I controlled this...if you want to change a copyrighted piece and recopyright...you then have to surrender the original copyright...sorry George.