Skip to main content

Of Companies and content

            Large companies such as Amazon, Apple, and Google want us to not think of digital content as something we can own. In fact, many of their end user agreements codify that we don’t actually own the content we buy. For instance, the Google play user agreement says
Following payment of the applicable fees for Content, you will have the non-exclusive right, for the period selected by you in the case of a purchase for a rental period, and in other cases for as long as Google and the applicable copyright holder have rights to provide you that Content, to download, use or stream, in each case, solely as expressly permitted by Google and subject to the restrictions set out in the Terms and associated policies, copies of the applicable Content to your Devices, and to view, use, and display the Content on your Devices or as otherwise authorized by Google as part of the Service for your personal, non-commercial use only. All rights, title and interest in Google Play and Content not expressly granted to you in the Terms are reserved by Google and its licensors.
Basically, this means Google owns the content and they give you the right to use it. and this isn't unusual. Language like this appears in the iTunes and amazon user agreement too. Worst yet, since you don’t own the content, you can’t protect it. For example, in 2009 Amazon lost the rights to the George Orwell novels “1984” and “Animal farm”. Consumers who had purchased these books were understandably miffed to wake up and find that the books had been deleted from their kindles. (stone, 2009) It wouldn’t be acceptable for a book store owner to break into you house and take back paper copies of your books, but with digital content it seems that is acceptable. In conclusion It’s important that we remember that we do own the digital content we own even if it doesn’t feel like it, and that we push back legally against entities that would seek to deny that.

References

Google. (2017, January 23). Google Play. Retrieved from Google Play terms of service: https://play.google.com/intl/en-us_us/about/play-terms.html
stone, B. (2009, july 17). Amazon erases orwell books from kindle. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0

Comments

  1. Unknown7 April 2017 at 22:44

    I agree that digital content should belong to someone once they pay for it just as a physical copy would, however- considering that they are stating ahead of time that you don't own the content, do you really have any legal ground to stand on? It's horrible for them to make materials people have paid for away, but it is technically perfectly legal to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nima557 April 2017 at 23:00

      It is technically legal, but my point is more that it shouldn't be. My complaint is more the practice than the legal status.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Your brain on digital

Human brains are bad at conceptualizing. If it’s not something we can see or touch, we are bad at understanding it. This makes sense, as when our brains were evolving they was no need for them to understand concepts like large numbers, or the size of the earth, or that digital content is actually real. If you can touch it, see it, or lick it, your brain has a hard time believing in it. That is why a paper book feels like a real object that you really own, whereas word on a kindle screen do not. They are both fundamentally the same thing, but as far as your brain is concerned, one is real and the other is not. The same way you can’t really understand that there are 7 billion people on earth, you can understand that there is a book inside your computer. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I reserve buying physical versions of content for things I really love, not only to save on clutter, but because that way it feels real. Intellectually, I know there is no difference between the comic I ...
1 comment
Read more

Blog Retrospective

    I've never actually had a blog before. From this project, I can honestly say, I enjoy having one, thought I doubt I'd ever have the social cache to ever justify having a personal blog. On a fun sidenote, am I the only one in our class who did name there blog some variation on "assignment 7"? Perhaps I mad a mistake not following suit, but I do enjoy the extra flair a proper name brings. Also, forgive my lack of humbleness, but I think my blog ended up the best looking, though I admit everyone probably thinks that.     I can see that a blog would be an extremely useful tool for a library, though I feel that using an off the self blogging service like Blogger or Tumblr is a little unprofessional. Perhaps it's just a personal hang-up, but I prefer it when organisation use a proprietary solution. I feel the best solution would be to have the blog just be a subsection on their own website.
Post a Comment
Read more