So You Think You Own The Books and Games You Paid For? [Opinion]

ownership 300   So You Think You Own The Books and Games You Paid For? [Opinion]I’ve got a shelf full of books. I love them. I read them. I even use them as a backdrop for my wife’s science videos.Β And sometimes, I lend them to friends.Β It’s not complicated, lending out books – you just hand your friend the book. If you’re lucky, your friend brings it back (and you get to share a great conversation). If not, your friend has a book – and you no longer do.

Since the dawn of human civilization, this is how lending worked. You can allow someone to borrow something. You can give someone something you don’t use anymore. You can do whatever you want with things you physically own.

It’s simple, and it’s not something most people want to change. Recent news from the world of video games, however, highlights how this basic thing – lending something to a friend – is becoming complex even if you physically own an object. The idea of ownership is shifting – if not disappearing – as we replace books with eBooks, video game discs with digital downloads and CDs with streaming services.

Is 4 > 1?

It drove gamers nuts. They took to Twitter, they took to comment sections and did just about everything (short of going outside) to complain about Microsoft’s new game lending policy – so much so that Microsoft eventually changed their policy.

What was it? To this day I’m not sure of the specifics (and am also not sure if Microsoft is), but the gist of it is this – if you want to lend someone a video game you physically own, they’ll need to pay Microsoft in order to play. If you want to sell a game you physically own, the buyer will also need to pay Microsoft to actually play it.

I could get into more specifics – how every game is installed to a hard drive, and how games must be tied to an XBox Live account in order to function. I could elaborate on how devices that are offline for 24 hours cannot play any games – online or off. I could discuss how game studios feel they lose money from used game sales – even though that’s a point I dispute.

controllers   So You Think You Own The Books and Games You Paid For? [Opinion]

I could, but that’s not my core point here. Besides, Microsoft has since changed its position. For me it’s not even about money, necessarily. I think the act of lending someone a game, under Microsoft’s new regime, is needlessly complex. Why are there rules? Why do I need to understand them in order to lend my friend a game?

Why can’t I just lend my friend a freaking game?Β I mean, I paid for it. I’m not playing it right now. Why can’t she play it? Technology is supposed to make our lives easier. This makes it harder.

It’s exactly these thoughts XBox competitor Sony was hinting at in this ‘tutorial’ video, outlining how lending a Playstation 4 game to a friend works:

Hilarious. What’s not mentioned is that Sony, like Microsoft, is increasingly looking to shift game sales from physical disks to digital downloads – and sharing those games is basically not possible.

(Check out reasons to buy the PS4 or reasons to buy the XBox One if you want to debate relative merits – that’s not my purpose here).

Lending Out eBooks

This goes well beyond video games. Back to my bookshelf – its collection isn’t growing like it used to. One reason for this is the allure of eBooks. Reading George R.R. Martin’s ‘A Song Of Ice And Fire’ is much easier electronically, if only because I don’t need to lug around its massive volumes.

There’s a problem, however – I cannot lend my now-read books to a friend. Short of physically handing a friend my ereader – which I won’t do – or giving her my Kobo password – which is illegal – there’s not a great way for me to share the battle for Westeros with anyone else.

Of course, Kindle users can lend books to each other. Sometimes. Some publishers block this feature – a power they very much don’t have with paper books.

muoscreenshot1831   So You Think You Own The Books and Games You Paid For? [Opinion]

But my ereader is a Kobo, and Kobo does not currently offer such a service. And even if they did, relatively few people in my adopted country (USA) own Kobo devices, and it will likely never be possible to loan a Kobo book to a Kindle user (unless they’re willing to read using only the smartphone app).

Not that I blame Kobo or Amazon for this situation – they can’t be expected to help their competitors by offering a compatible sharing service. But the fact that they don’t means lending an ebook to a friend is much more complex than a paper book. That our idea of ownership is changing.

The End Of Ownership?

When you buy an eBook, depending on the service, you’re not purchasing the book itself: you’re purchasing the right to read the book on a limited number of devices. Which devices these are, and anything else you can do with the book, is entirely up to the eBook platform (and it could change at any time).

This changes our understanding of ownership, but in other parts of the digital media landscape ownership is disappearing outright. Netflix users, for example, understand that their access to TV shows and movies does not imply any kind of ownership. If they stop paying Netflix – or Netflix stops paying a content creator – the right to watch a particular show can disappear completely.

Spotify users similarly pay a monthly fee for access, but know they don’t own the content they stream.

It’s not completely a bad thing – users of such services have access to far more content than their subscription fees could possibly buy. It is a shift, however – and one we should all be mindful of.

The Lesson Of Sony

So: do I have a point? Back to video games. Sony scored massive PR points with its policy on lending, which is odd – all they did was not restrict an existing freedom. They noticed that consumers didn’t like Microsoft’s new policies, and made sure not to adapt them – not exactly heroic.

playstation4 used   So You Think You Own The Books and Games You Paid For? [Opinion]

It does, however, show us that if one company restricts something – and enough people are unhappy – another company could well step in. The fact that Microsoft eventually switched positions only adds to this point: competition goes a long way.

Of course, that’s up to us. If people complain about things like this, but buy flawed devices anyway, things won’t get much simpler. Β What do you think?

The comments were closed because the article is more than 180 days old.

If you have any questions related to what's mentioned in the article or need help with any computer issue, ask it on MakeUseOf Answers—We and our community will be more than happy to help.

22 Comments -

G W

Excellent article and a lot of fantastic points. Thank you for the continuing this dialog about ownership in the digital age. The implementation of DRM, for good or ill, has made it difficult for consumers to truly “own” the products they purchase.

null

I’m of the mindset that if you own a copy of a book a movie or music then by all mean strip the DRM out of it. I don’t upload or give out copies but I’ll be d#$%#$% if the media companies are going to be able to take what I have bought fair and square.

Justin Pot

With Kindle, I’m pretty sure, you haven’t actually bought the book…you’ve bought the right to read the book on their devices. I get that you don’t care, but that’s what the fine print says.

Nermal

Draconian laws are not worthy of following..

How would you feel if you bought the latest Stephen King as a paperback, Β£14.95, from WHSmith..

.. Only to read on the back that you have ONLY bought the right to read it in your own lounge, not to lend it or resell it, nor give it away. Further more, you are forbidden to read it anywhere else except your lounge..

Laws that cripple your rights are not laws to follow and uphold.

dragonmouth

Let’s not forget that if it wasn’t for Bill Gates, software ownership might have taken a different path. Back in his computer club days, before Microsoft was even a gleam in his eye, he insisted that he be paid for any programs that he wrote. When he started MS, he introduced the idea of software being tied to only one computer.

Why should the medium determine whether we own what we paid for or not? M$ and Fruitco and Adobe would love to go to subscription software only model but as long as *nix/BSD exist, they don’t dare to push too hard for fear of losing customers. OTOH, as long as the sheeple believe you get what you pay for, these companies will continue to fleece their customers.

Aquiles Baeza

and then they are the first to talk about the piracy makes them “loose” money, freaking technological world :S

Junil Maharjan

since the digitally purchased copies of books, music, softwares, etc. contains DRMs or licenses, i believe that we do not own them but just the license to use them that can be revoked by the developer or the company anytime it sees fit. to most people, it feels they own there products but there is very little they can do with the product as they want. they can’t resale it, most of them can’t be lent to a family member or friend, etc. as i said we just own the license to the product and not the product itself.

dragonmouth

“since the digitally purchased copies of books, music, softwares, etc. contains DRMs or licenses, i believe that we do not own them but just the license to use them that can be revoked by the developer or the company anytime it sees fit”
If the DRM contained a timer that allowed you only a one time access to the product, or allowed you only a limited amount of time (days) to use the product before erasing it from your PC, would you be so sanguine about the DRM? Wan’t it realtively recently that Amazon reached out and disabled customers’ copies of some eBook?

As long as the sheeple tacitly agree to the DRM by tolerating it, companies will use it and abuse it. People should refuse to buy ANY electronic product that contains DRM. If M$ did not sell any Xbox Ones, they would quckly rethink their philosophy. If Amazon did not sell any eBooks because they contained DRM, it would quickly change its stance. It has been done before and it can be done again.

Justin Pot

Do you think most people understand that distinction, though? That they’re making a informed purchasing decisions knowing fully that this is the case?

dragonmouth

As Jorge says, most people are not interested in knowing. They just want their Preciousss.

Lucius Severus Pertinax

Of course, software IS available for (free) download that can take a “picture” of each page of an e-book as one flips thru the pages. The result can even be converted into a .pdf file, that YOU will own and solely control. So long as you keep it for your own use and don’t distribute for sale, you won;t have a problem.
The same thing goes for movies; the software “watches” the movie right along with you, in real time, recording what is shown on the screen and what is being sent to the speakers.
That is the great thing about technology; there is ALWAYS a work-around!

The idea that one is giving the media moguls your money for PERMISSION to use a physical object that YOU own is ludicrous; THEY certainly don’t have that attitude toward YOUR money!

dragonmouth

“The idea that one is giving the media moguls your money for PERMISSION to use a physical object that YOU own is ludicrous”
They operate according to the Golden Rule, “He who has the gold, makes the rules”

Of course the idea is ludicrous but what is more ludicrous that supposedly free-thinking people tolerate the idea by purchasing products that contain DRM.

michel

but it’s not a physical object, and you’re not “buying” it. You’re paying for the right to read the text on your device. You can easily lend the book by lending the device.

You may not like these terms, but they don’t stop you from actually buying a physical copy if you like – or printing it yourself.

Justin Pot

Great stuff, guys.

I believe fair use says you can use tools like this, just like you can use a DVR to record TV. And once you’ve made your self a DRM-free copy, you own it in a much more real sense – though you probably shouldn’t try selling it online.

Onaje Asheber

Insaneness and Greed…

Jorge

These issues simply reflect that most people don’t understand what intellectual property is and how it works from a legal standpoint.

I won’t get into specifics since there’s too much information about it on the Web but, unfortunately, most people are simply not interested in knowing.

Justin Pot

And how interested should people be, when an $8 Netflix subscription gives you access to all the TV and movies you can watch?

BiG eViL…….

i think there are double standards, by saying that you own the right to read the ebook rather than the ebook itself is hilarious, that’s like saying you own the physical pages of the book (paper) but not the content (ink) which is written by the author. thats a ridiculous idea brought upon by the media companies just because things have become digital. this issue is extremely important for public/private libraries, they cannot afford fill their bookshelves with kindle readers if they want to lend books to people, it is just absurd.

Coming to video games, developers saying that they are losing money because of piracy is baseless, because when you develop a software you have infinite stock of the software, it can be copied over to discs infinite number of times, saying that pirates stole from your infinite inventory and giving it a money value is baseless, this cost incalculable, correct me if i am wrong but i have never seen or heard in news that XYZ developer went bankrupt due to piracy causing losses, the developer makes losses because of buggy and unreliable software (crapware).

hildyj

I am (or was) a bibliophile. I have about 500 linear feet of bookshelves. Decades ago, the price of hardbacks made me start waiting for the paperback to come out. Still, I would buy 5 – 10 books a month. Now I buy zero. I love reading on a tablet but if I pay for something I expect to own it. So I just read the ebooks my local library buys. I don’t own them but I don’t have to pay anything for them either.

Justin Pot

So the idea that you don’t own the books you buy stopped you from buying altogether? There’s a logic there I kind of hope catches on…

SLZ

I contend this is not a change in definition as much as it is an example easily understood by elements divorced from reality. In the real world we have been dealing with fuzzy ownership for as long as I can remember; look toward real estate, who owns this piece of physical property: even though the name listed on the title is mine, the bank through mortgage, the insurance company through policy and the government through taxation all hold a stake in my property, making me a co-owner of this asset. In the virtual world, along the chain of custody each player tends to assert its rights of ownership to the point that no one actually owns anything (or everyone owns everything). This has been a goal of collectivism since Marx first tied social life to economic life.

Leah

I understand where companies are coming from. Physical copies are harder to duplicate, but with digital copies essentially one person buys the item and then can copy it infinite number of times. How many lost sales would that be? Some would never have been a sale, but some would have. With a physical copy I lend it to you I don’t have it in my possession. I share an ebook or an mp3 with you and we can both possess it at the same time.

But, I also believe that when you own something you should be allowed to share it. If I purchase an ebook I should be allowed to share it like I do a physical book. I understand if we have two different types of ereaders they are not compatible, but if we have the same we should be able to share.

I think we should be able to share but perhaps put handicaps on that. You can only share a certain number of times and if the copy you own is one you got from sharing then you can’t share it. Or maybe make it so you can only share one copy at a time. Put a time limit on that sharing (as decided by you or the receiver) and when that limit is hit they cannot access the book anymore and you can share it with someone else (or that same person).