Sentences with phrase «rather license the content»

Be it an unfavorable end - user license agreement (EULA) or digital rights management (DRM), corporate entities have endeavored to convey that consumers do not own digital content, but rather license the content for an indeterminate period of time, during which the rights holder can terminate said license with impunity.

Not exact matches

Whether it is the purchase of Lucasfilm, the sequel (and prequel)- isation of Pixar's earliest and best work or the Disney Infinity «multi-platform experience,» the world's most successful film studio is no longer venturing outward in search of material, but rather has turned entirely inward, and is fracking its own landscape of licenses to generate «content.»

Most importantly, I would prefer to see states expend precious public dollars on answering these questions of performance measurement rather than on an elaborate licensing apparatus that typically measures only course content and internship hours.

What is clear is that consumers who buy DRM will benefit by owning rather than merely having a license to use the content they purchase.

Amazon do allow people to share some of their Kindle content if their accounts are linked - but even so the idea that we buy a license to access that content, rather than the rights of ownership is also part of the Kindle Store's terms of use.

When it comes to digital works, however, two complications arise: first, consumers might only hold a license to the content, rather than all of the rights that come from a sale; second, without a traditional physical container for each purchased work, consumers may not practically be able to sell their «particular copy» at all.

Nowadays you're not actually «purchasing» a PC game, but rather «subscribing» to it or purchasing a license for it, which means game publishers can tell you how many times you can install a game, make you pay to unlock content that's already on the disc, or go ahead and revoke your right to play a game, and there's nothing illegal about them doing any of these things at all because you paid $ 50 for a service (the subscription or license) rather than for a product.

Nowadays you're not actually «purchasing» a PC game, but rather «subscribing» to it or «licensing» it, which means game publishers can tell you how many times you can install a game, make you pay to unlock content that's already on the disc, or go ahead and revoke your right to play a game, and there's nothing illegal about them doing any of these things at all because you paid $ 50 for a service rather than a product.

Various sources such as the BBC and MoneySavingExpert talk about the law changing with regards to TV licensing, specifically stating that UK Residents now require a TV License to watch catch - up (rather than Live) content on the BBC iPlayer, from Sept 1, 2016

Another strength of this book is that it focuses on areas that have been given short shrift in previous works on Canadian copyright: users» rights (an area of increasing importance, since most public discourse about copyright focuses on what we can't do rather than what we can); aboriginal approaches to intellectual property rights (which emphasize the protection of the honour of clans, cultures, and nations over the rights of individual creators); digital rights management (and its spectacular failure to actually protect content); and public licensing systems (such as the Creative Commons licenses).

Anyone who wants to get a driving license will be more likely to attend a driving school that constantly publishes high - quality content online rather than one which pursues only standard advertising channels.