301–310 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I had expected to own it forever, I'd probably have bought DVD's, not digital. This is the opposite of what it should be. DVDs degrade over time, and can last for as little as 10 years. Digital should be mean transportable and convertible indefinitely.
Do printed DVDs last that little? That sounds more like the lifespan of burned discs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum. >This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it. When I pay for a book in a bookstore, part of the money goes towards maintaining the system that produces and distr…
> It will create an entirely different system. Simple as that sounds I didn't think of it before. It seems that if all the old systems can/might/will be replaced by the mega corp we could simply set a modest fixed megacorp-tax of say 1-2% and have the rest go to the creator of the text or video. It was the author who provided the excuse in the old system why we should pay for easily replicated data. The argument that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For CD’s it’s legal to make backup copies in the US which are digital and thus don’t degrade. Many of the oldest recordings still work, and can be played indefinitely with an optical needle. The time value of money means the possible purchase by a small fraction of buyers 20+ years out isn’t worth much at the time of sale. It’s only moving forward in time that makes anyone care about these sales. https://en.wikipedia…
I’m curious are iTunes and similar stores licensing the music to you? I’m guessing it is a license and not ownership. In either case I can see them addressing this problem of lower velocity with subscription only licensing where you license tunes for X amount of time. Obviously not in the interest of consumers but I can see why sellers would go this route.
Hot Take: Just pirate everything and be done with it. Between 5 Suscription Services it would take to get the few TV Shows& Movies I care about, Privacy concerns and unethical behaviour like this i just can't be bothered to look for "legal" sources anymore when any decent private tracker has everything i need in one place anyway. The content mafia didn't get it with music, until perhaps spotify for a while and now th…
As a reaction to decades of cable TV, the market wanted and celebrated Netflix, one place to pay and watch all the shows and movies you want.
But with time, what we got are just multiple cable TV packages served over the internet, each with their own subscription model and poorly developed app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum. This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it. > How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to do…
But with a book, you have that privilege in perpetuity, and you can loan, transfer, and resell it. Coincidentally, NFT’s got the “transfer” side of the equation, but forgot about the “privilege” part! The tokens are yours in perpetuity, and can be transferred to others, but it’s not at all clear what privilege they provide.
But you don't. Not really. DVDs and books only last, what, 30-40 years. Are you entitled to a free replacement after that time is up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refunds aren't sufficient, you are owed whatever the replacement cost is. If the good is no longer available except for at 10x or 100x the price, you are owed that. If the good is no longer available at any price, but the person with the liability is capable of making it available, they should be required to do so (or negotiate a contract with you that buys out your rights, but you should be free to decline that or t…
That's unreasonable, wouldn't be practical, and goes against precedent. The analogy here is if you buy a vacuum cleaner from a store and it doesn't work because of a defect. You bring it back and get your money back. The store isn't required to provide you with another working vacuum cleaner. If the vacuum cleaner is no longer manufactured, they're not required to find one in mint condition on eBay that's 10x or 100x…
The store does not lock your access to your vacuum while it's in your home. This may happen in the future with cars for example. Imagine you driving and suddenly your car dies because the car company "banned" you and locked your car.
I hate to be so cynical, but here's exactly how this is going to play out, or I'll eat my hat: 1. Apple and Amazon will add language to their Terms and Conditions stating that regardless of the phrasing on their websites and apps, access to the media that customers purchase will be revoked if their account is terminated. And since it's in the agreement, it's binding: in general, you can't sue to get out of a contract…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I had expected to own it forever, I'd probably have bought DVD's, not digital. This is the opposite of what it should be. DVDs degrade over time, and can last for as little as 10 years. Digital should be mean transportable and convertible indefinitely.
Do printed DVDs last that little? That sounds more like the lifespan of burned discs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say this is more a fundamental problem/feature of human relations than technology. Every transaction, every contract, every treaty and every law has, on its own, little more value than a receipt. Centralization doesn't really solve that issue so much as it pretends to add the weight of government/society/God/{abstract entity of choice} where there is none. What's remained the same since time immemorial is tha…
I'm not sure if you went anywhere with the question of "what use does a smart contract actually have" beyond "justifying vigilante justice" or "anarcho-capitalism" (which, let's be clear, boils down to feudalism in which they'd be little less than a formality).
In addition, I don't see how you read my statement and came away with the idea that I support vigilante justice or anarcho-capitalism. My questions were pointed towards addressing the unstated assumptions inherent to your question and the other questions in your post that I didn't quote. Namely, that a centralized authority or agreement of centralized authorities is a requirement to render any transaction/contract/agreement valid. That's an assumption I find to be unproven and easily contested.