Virtual goods are still mine: Open letter to The Economist
I'm inaugurating a new section that will be more life oriented i.e not talking about software engineering. It might be in English or French depending on my mood and the public expected to read the entry. So this first blog post is more or less an open letter to The Economist.
When I'm not doing software engineering, I'm highly interested in finance, economy and politics. Until recently, I was even a diligent subscriber of The Economist. I've decided two months ago to not renew my subscription. Not because I don't like the magazine anymore but because it was too time consuming to read. I want this year to have the time to read books.
I was receiving the paper version which allows me to have access to the online version. Of course, I'm not keeping the paper versions in my basement since I was having access to them online. I was really surprised to realize that as soon as my subscription expired, I've lost the access to the entire The Economist website content. Event the editions THAT I PAID FOR!
I found that to be quite a cheap decision from a journal as renowned as The Economist.
But I also think it shouldn't be legal. It's been one of my thoughts for a while now.
Virtual properties should have the same "rights" as physical ones. When I buy a physical book, I can sale it, lend it, give it.
If an buy a e-book, I can't do all this. I'm locked in whatever rules the seller wants to apply. And I don't feel good about it. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one and I'm also pretty sure it creates adoption issues.
Of course you can buy virtual gears. Sellers love to sell you stuff. Virtual or not. But when it's virtual, they currently make sure you will never really be the owner of it.
Yes, I do understand the concept of service. For instance, The Economist offers the website as a service to their customer. They pay the hosting, the development so it makes sense that if I stop paying, the service stops. But it doesn't make sense that I can't download the PDF of all the issues I bought. Of course it means that I would then be allowed to illegally diffuse them. But I can allow photocopy my paper issue. Or scan it.
Meanwhile, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. Until these's a law protecting my virtual properties, I'm not really sure I will trust The Economist anymore.
When I'm not doing software engineering, I'm highly interested in finance, economy and politics. Until recently, I was even a diligent subscriber of The Economist. I've decided two months ago to not renew my subscription. Not because I don't like the magazine anymore but because it was too time consuming to read. I want this year to have the time to read books.
I was receiving the paper version which allows me to have access to the online version. Of course, I'm not keeping the paper versions in my basement since I was having access to them online. I was really surprised to realize that as soon as my subscription expired, I've lost the access to the entire The Economist website content. Event the editions THAT I PAID FOR!
I found that to be quite a cheap decision from a journal as renowned as The Economist.
But I also think it shouldn't be legal. It's been one of my thoughts for a while now.
Virtual properties should have the same "rights" as physical ones. When I buy a physical book, I can sale it, lend it, give it.
If an buy a e-book, I can't do all this. I'm locked in whatever rules the seller wants to apply. And I don't feel good about it. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one and I'm also pretty sure it creates adoption issues.
Of course you can buy virtual gears. Sellers love to sell you stuff. Virtual or not. But when it's virtual, they currently make sure you will never really be the owner of it.
Yes, I do understand the concept of service. For instance, The Economist offers the website as a service to their customer. They pay the hosting, the development so it makes sense that if I stop paying, the service stops. But it doesn't make sense that I can't download the PDF of all the issues I bought. Of course it means that I would then be allowed to illegally diffuse them. But I can allow photocopy my paper issue. Or scan it.
Meanwhile, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. Until these's a law protecting my virtual properties, I'm not really sure I will trust The Economist anymore.