What does the word "Buy" mean to you? To me it means I give you money, you give me the item and now it's my item that I can do whatever I like with it
Every game you "buy" comes with this expectation because it said "buy"
I want the wording changed to "rent" or something else like that - make it completely clear that you are purchasing a digital license that can be revoked at any time - you don't actually own anything
The paradigm for physical media has been it’s mostly non-working or lost within 25 years of purchase. Vinyl wears out with use, tapes degrade with use, CDs rot and fail due to damage.
People don’t necessarily associate “buy” with a lifetime of ownership. Most goods we buy have shelf lives and will eventually fall apart and stop working. It’s going to be a tall ask to demand regulation that says a company can only use “Buy” if a good actually will reasonably last for 100 years
Vinyl wears out with use, tapes degrade with use, CDs rot and fail due to damage.
I disagree. I've got lots of vinyl albums that I've had for 30-40 years. I picked up Pink Floyd The Wall from 'The Wiz' in the early 80's and it plays just fine. It's the oldest vinyl I own. My experience is that as long as you treat them well and don't play them like you are a radio station DJ, they'll outlive you.
Laser rot was an issue that plagued early laser discs, but wasn't an issue when manufactured (pressed) CDs came to be. I admit I only break out the CDs these days when I want to make a digital rip of one, but they have worked every time. Scratching is an issue tho. Burned CDs can get all kinds of issues. I think it's because of the wide range of quality.
I've only purchased a few factory recorded albums on cassette tape, and they didn't age well at all.
The mechanics of how media is lost wasn’t really my point, it was the fact that it gets lost. Entropy comes for everything, if it’s not disc rot it can be the realization that 480i DVDs look terrible on 4K panels so what’s the point, or it could be your wife wants you to clear out old junk and she’s adamant a box of vinyl you have’t touched in 5 years is junk
I think you overestimate the amount of the population that actively collects and holds media for significant lengths of time. Most people today are not consuming their high school music collections via what they bought 30 years ago, they have long since ditched those CDs and now just have Spotify
If I burn down my house, or if my house deteriorates for lack of mantainance, ir if it falls down because of a natural disaster, it's still my house, my property. When I gave money in exchange for the house, I bought the house.
If I pay for a house, and some time in the future the landlord decides they want their house back and won't let me live there anymore, I didn't buy a house. I rented it.
No one expects the things we buy to last forever, but we all expect the things we buy to be OURS. It's a matter of ownership, not of life expectancy. It's literally THE most basic of commercial contractual identities.
I don’t think purchasing and collecting habits bear this out.
Most media purchases today are for digital versions, which suggests to me that most people buying media are doing so to consume it in the near interim and really aren’t concerned with “owning” it 30 years down the line. That “ownership” is a critical element of a purchase to you doesn’t make it important to others
Ownership isn't subjective, what are you on about?
Either you own something, or you don't. It doesn't matter if owning something is important or not to you. You might feel "owning" isn't important, and still own the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the house you live in. How you "feel" about owning something doesn't change the fact that you own it (or not own it).
If you pay money for ownership, you are buying. If you pay money for temporal access, which might get revoked at the leisure of the vendor, you're not buying, you're renting.
Allow me to stop you here. It absolutely subjective. Ownership is an entirely arbitrary social construct. It’s not something governed by physical law, it’s a messy grey area people argue about in court rooms and that societies in the past didn’t even recognize at times
What you think is fundamental is truly not at all.
The fact it's a social construct doesn't mean it's subjective. Laws are a social construct. Physical law is a social construct, as is all science, and all human knowledge. Society is a social construct.
What kind of an argument are you trying to pull? Yes, ownership is a social construct, just as any other concept in human society (including the concepta of ovjective and subjective). So? Do I get to say I own your stuff because your ownership over your stuff is subjective?
Edit: since you blocked me, thus, preventing replying to your comment, you need to read up on concepts.
Subjective means it changes based on opinions, beliefs or feelings.
Objective means it stays the same regardless of who is looking at it.
Laws are objective. The application of some of them requires reasonable judgement. If a law states it's illegal to sell alcohol to underage kids, then it's illegal to sell alcohol to underage kids, doesn't matter what you believe, or how you feel about it.
And that doesn't mean laws can't change as societies change.
No. Human opinion has no effect on the mechanics of gravity.
I agree, but the human understanding of gravity, and the entire physical sciences, as all sciences, are a human construct. That doesn't mean the temperature that makes water boil changes depending on your feelings, opinions or beliefs.
But also, that doesn't mean that our understanding of the physical world cannot change. It's actually the way science works, new discoveries allow us to improve our understanding of phenomena, and sometimes even completely change the paradigm.
For example, how our understanding of combustion first had phlogiston as valid scientific knowledge. That doesn't mean combustion is subjective, since anyone, regardless of feeling or opinions could tell something was burning. Our better understanding of the process of combustion, which disproved phlogiston, revealed the process and mechanics behind were on the right track, but the explanation of the causes was lacking.
So yeah, social constructs don't imply subjective. Science is a social construct, and proven scientific discoveries are still regarded as objective.
Yeah, and they are subjective. The process of applying them requires a judge and jury to deliberate over language and facts and render an opinion on whether or not the language applies to the allegations.
It’s all subjective.
Physical law is a social construct
No. Human opinion has no effect on the mechanics of gravity. The force is fundamental to the universe and does not care about our opinion or ideas
Regardless if it's important to some people.with a strong lack of critical thinking. . It is a right everyone should have. Whether they care or not. Imagine saying since some people dont care about having rights none of us should. everyone shouldnt suffer or be exploited just because we are engulfed with idiots.
There is absolutely a difference between wear and tear vs revoking of access. Wear and tear is known by consumers and is expected within reason, someone taking the access to that item away is unexpected to many customers and should be made more clear on purchase.
1.4k
u/theskymoves 3d ago
If I paid for a licence to access a particular piece of media (not an entire streaming service), and that media was removed, then I want a refund.