I think this goes too far. It would mean, for example, that subscribing to Netflix means I will always have access to all films and TV series currently available. That strikes me as unreasonable: it's pretty clear to everyone that the deal is you pay a certain amount of month to be able to temporarily access the films and series they offer at any particular time.
It's really a matter of communication; what do you actually get when you pay $X for something? Right now this is too often unclear, hidden in the ToS or some such. If you want to sell access to Roald Dahl's books for only a week then I don't see anything wrong with that: as long as it's communicated clearly up-front, so I know what exactly I'm getting and can make an informed purchase decision. This is kind of how libraries work, right? It's not a problem because the deal is clear to customers up front.
So in short, I'd be in favour of laws that mandate clearer communication of the conditions, rather than laws that forces anyone to adopt a particular way of selling stuff or access to stuff.
I don't think subscribing to a library service is the same as buying a digital copy of an item.
Someone subscribing to Kindle Plus (or whatever) might not expect to have a permanent copy of each book, but someone who pays for a digital copy definitely does.
Because it's harmful to society as a whole. Many things that are overtly harmful to society, we have enacted laws against. This is no different.
Licensing vs. Ownership.
Licensing is predatory behavior aimed at deceiving, manipulating, and fleecing the populace. It's easily proven with math and economic studies already done and published.
Why are you in favor of an overtly predatory policy, @arp242?
I don't think it's predatory at all as long as the terms are clear up front. I know I keep repeating myself, but I really think that's the problem here. The predatory part is that consumers think they are paying for A while in fact they are paying for B. This doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with B though.
That you don't like this model is fair and reasonable. But that doesn't mean we should ban it. I certainly don't see how it's "harmful to a society as a whole"; the only truly harmful part I see is the deception (as well as the overly long copyright duration in general, but that's a bit of a different issue and reducing copyright to a more reasonable term won't mean the death of Kindle or these kind of business models).
All of this is true for any purchase you make, and why there are clear laws in the EU for example which state that the full price must be shown up-front, with a breakdown of the cost. So this applies to more than just e-books. These laws should be expanded.
I'm not sure if you're really disagreeing. The fundamental principle is that if you characterize it as a purchase the license has to be irrevocable. I can't really speak for anyone else, but for me, I don't think it should be legal to advertise a license for sale that is revocable. If the license is revocable then you must explicitly use language like "rent" or "license" but never "buy" or "purchase."
Sorry, all books must be available in perpetuity in exact original form. If edits are required, a permission slip must be filed with the appropriate bureau, and a letter sent to each ebook purchaser informing them of intent to publish a typographical error correction. Upon unanimous consent from all ebook purchasers, only then may a new version of the book be made available with a large disclaimer that the new copy of the book has changes.
Or that’s what most people in this thread would probably want.
My bad. I was refering to "buying" digital copies, not libraries like Netflix.
For libraries though, I think a similar law should force any provider to notice X months in advance (like 3 months) before some content will be pulled, and prevent them from pulling any earlier, giving enough time for subscribers to access/watch uncensored/original content.
Basic consumer protection laws such as that sound reasonable to me; perhaps some more might be a good idea as well. You can argue a bit over the details, but in principle I'm all in favour of that. That's a lot less strong than what you suggested in your previous comment though.
It's a double edged sword. I don't think it governments should have right to control anything like this but since they do already, at least they can be helpful on the other end of the spectrum.
It's really a matter of communication; what do you actually get when you pay $X for something? Right now this is too often unclear, hidden in the ToS or some such. If you want to sell access to Roald Dahl's books for only a week then I don't see anything wrong with that: as long as it's communicated clearly up-front, so I know what exactly I'm getting and can make an informed purchase decision. This is kind of how libraries work, right? It's not a problem because the deal is clear to customers up front.
So in short, I'd be in favour of laws that mandate clearer communication of the conditions, rather than laws that forces anyone to adopt a particular way of selling stuff or access to stuff.