While watching TV tonight, I forget what movie was being advertised on TV, but the marketing tag line said just that at the end; "Own it forever. Buy your copy today."
It got me thinking quite alot. We always hear software, music, and movie companies say that all they have sold the customer is a license to use the media that the content resides on and that the consumer never really owns the copyrighted work. But then you have commericials telling consumers that they can indeed, own a movie forever. Now while we here understand that it means that the consumer "owns" a license to use the media for as long as the media remains playable (i.e. scratches, dust, finger prints, etc..) am I the only the one that sees that industry marketing is continuing to create confusion with the issues of ownership vs. licensing?
The reason I bring this up, goes back to the concept of ownership. As an owner, you basically own all rights to your property (in this case the media) and you are free to do with is as you wish within reason (sell to someone else, lend it out, make backup copies etc..) But as the law states, consumers are only purchasing the rights to enjoy the media content. Major confusion.
I was talking to my wife who has a speech due at the end of the week for her class and the topic is piracy. I have given a lot of my thoughts on the subject, pros and cons. So we started talking about this. Sadly, she and the majority of her family have no clue about copyrigth laws which is probably right up there with the majority of America. But her perception of watching a sales ad for a movie gave her the direct inclination that if she bought the DVD she would indeed own it forever.
Am I the only one that thinks this type of advertising by the studios is complete horse crap? They bitch and yell about losing profits to piracy and they fight against every software that allows people tthe right they are afforded in making personal copies yet they have the audacity to advertise that people can really "own it forever". One can argue and say its semantics and what they are saying is that the consumer really owns a license "forever." But the majority of consumers who see these ads DO NOT understand that.
So how long before someone buys a copy of this movie from the commercial and does whatever with it and then sues the industry on the gounds of false advertisement that by law, the consumer CANNOT truly own someone else's copyrighted work forever. Hopefully we can avoid the never ending debate on piracy rather instead discuss the confusion being put out there over ownership of copyrighted works and advertising.
It got me thinking quite alot. We always hear software, music, and movie companies say that all they have sold the customer is a license to use the media that the content resides on and that the consumer never really owns the copyrighted work. But then you have commericials telling consumers that they can indeed, own a movie forever. Now while we here understand that it means that the consumer "owns" a license to use the media for as long as the media remains playable (i.e. scratches, dust, finger prints, etc..) am I the only the one that sees that industry marketing is continuing to create confusion with the issues of ownership vs. licensing?
The reason I bring this up, goes back to the concept of ownership. As an owner, you basically own all rights to your property (in this case the media) and you are free to do with is as you wish within reason (sell to someone else, lend it out, make backup copies etc..) But as the law states, consumers are only purchasing the rights to enjoy the media content. Major confusion.
I was talking to my wife who has a speech due at the end of the week for her class and the topic is piracy. I have given a lot of my thoughts on the subject, pros and cons. So we started talking about this. Sadly, she and the majority of her family have no clue about copyrigth laws which is probably right up there with the majority of America. But her perception of watching a sales ad for a movie gave her the direct inclination that if she bought the DVD she would indeed own it forever.
Am I the only one that thinks this type of advertising by the studios is complete horse crap? They bitch and yell about losing profits to piracy and they fight against every software that allows people tthe right they are afforded in making personal copies yet they have the audacity to advertise that people can really "own it forever". One can argue and say its semantics and what they are saying is that the consumer really owns a license "forever." But the majority of consumers who see these ads DO NOT understand that.
So how long before someone buys a copy of this movie from the commercial and does whatever with it and then sues the industry on the gounds of false advertisement that by law, the consumer CANNOT truly own someone else's copyrighted work forever. Hopefully we can avoid the never ending debate on piracy rather instead discuss the confusion being put out there over ownership of copyrighted works and advertising.