> you can own the file, but not he intellectual property it represents.
So I'm allowed to distribute files I own freely, as long as I take the file extension off of it? Or the metadata?
I agree, the long string of the presence or absence of electric charge that make up A New Hope is not the concept of a "A New Hope". Too bad nobody else sees it that way, because when you put that number through a math function named (and patented) h.264, and you draw the outputs of one stream to a pixel grid on a fixed update cycle and you output the other stream as a sine wave of PCM values, you get "A New Hope", the visual and audible experience.
> So I'm allowed to distribute files I own freely, as long as I take the file extension off of it?
Who said you are allowed to distribute them freely? You are not. Same way you aren't allowed making photo copies of books and distributing them freely (except fair use cases). Making personal copies is fine (it's fair use). It's not relevant to the discussion above really.
> you can own the file, but not the intellectual property it represents. So legally nothing is wrong with buying digital goods (files), while the intellectual property they hold is only licensed to you (and not sold)
He makes references between books the paper and books the print. My point is that while that distinction holds in digital space, nobody actually believes it.
So I'm allowed to distribute files I own freely, as long as I take the file extension off of it? Or the metadata?
I agree, the long string of the presence or absence of electric charge that make up A New Hope is not the concept of a "A New Hope". Too bad nobody else sees it that way, because when you put that number through a math function named (and patented) h.264, and you draw the outputs of one stream to a pixel grid on a fixed update cycle and you output the other stream as a sine wave of PCM values, you get "A New Hope", the visual and audible experience.