Why is it that digital media purchasing and ownership isn't the same as purchasing and owning the physical media?

Because the company you purchase it from has to host and serve the data to you. For how long? Eternity?

They should probably stop calling it "buying" and call it a long-term rental but that won't be good for their bottom line.

If you want to keep your data forever, buy a Blu-Ray.

I have my home server backing up my whole GOG library.

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this but a lot of physical discs nowadays are nothing more than glorified license checks, especially with games. Even buying the physical version does not guarantee you safety from these problems.

Also related is the fact that DVDs and Blu-rays can be region locked. Years ago I bought media from another region as it wasn’t available in my region yet, happily played it on my PC but later when I went to play it in my PlayStation, nope! Even when there was media, they tried to artificially restrict usage.

Im gonna use a bad word, but NFTs would help with this issue

True digital ownership thats censor proof is pretty legit imo

Digital ownership is an oxymoron.

Piracy will always win whether corporations like it or not. I'll always try and buy physical copies of games. But movies and TV shows need to be on my hard drive if the price isn't right for a physical copy.

I have my fair share of streaming services. Peacock for WWE, prime video well cause of Amazon prime. But if I do wanna watch a movie or show, then I will have to sail the high seas.

Expect, there is no future in digital ownership.

You will own nothing and you WILL be happy.

Digital media means that there is an ongoing service behind it. The servers use energy. The parts age and break. It requires a continuing feed of labor and resources to keep going.

Imagine a streaming service that is all based on buying media, instead of subscription or renting. Then suppose all the customers somehow decide that the media they own are enough for now (maybe because money is tight, because inflation). With no more cash coming in, the service goes bankrupt.

In principle, you could have a type of license that allows you to get a new copy in any way you can (torrent, etc.). That would be hard to police, though.

FWIW, owning a physical copy isn't all that, either. There are various ways built-in to make life harder for customers, like geo-blocking. Bypassing these tends to be a criminal offense.

Digital ownership can be done properly but you need NFT game licences

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Affected users who may have spent years building a robust digital library were suddenly left without access to content they had bought through no fault of their own.

Even though downloading and accessing digital content is often easier than trudging to a retail store to buy a physical copy of a game, you’re putting your faith in the platform holders to maintain their digital storefronts, the content on those storefronts, and their account systems so that your access keeps working.

The recent closure of Nintendo’s Wii U and 3DS eShops was a stark reminder that companies have the power to decide when you can buy digital content.

While you can still redownload Wii U and 3DS games that you’ve purchased, it seems inevitable that Nintendo will stop letting you do that one day.

And Sony isn’t offering any compensation for titles you’ve already bought or a way to transfer those purchases to another store.

The PlayStation account bans were as swift as they were unexpected, and while resolution for most arrived within a few hours, Sony still hasn’t shared any public communication about what happened or why users should continue to trust the platform.

The original article contains 525 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Let's not forget that this is just as much Discoverys fault as Sony