Americans own less stuff because of the Internet. Is that a worry?

[CyberMiles]

Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I've been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.

The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionised how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com does.

https://www.afr.com/opinion/americans-own-less-stuff-because-of-the-internet-and-thats-a-worry-20180812-h13vkd

[MiningDog]

Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I've been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.

The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionised how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com does.

https://www.afr.com/opinion/americans-own-less-stuff-because-of-the-internet-and-thats-a-worry-20180812-h13vkd

I don't think this is such a big problem. It may actually be a good thing. Imagine how much paper we are saving by not printing so many books. I can see that the worry could be that theoretically Amazon could just say, "The books are ours, you can't read them anymore." I don't think they could do that legally, for one thing. The other thing is that, even if they did do that, there's plenty of competition. Everybody would just go to another company. That is the main reason that Amazon would never do that. They want to make money. I think owning less things is actually a great thing. Do you think that to be a "true American" you need to own lots of things? The bigger the better? I think that's a relatively new idea. Did the founding fathers think like that?

[CyberMiles]

Good points. It's certainly better for the environment.

[tenebriscaelum]

One should also understand the benefits of modernization. It is true that people are owning less every year as digitalization of books and magazine is a thing now, not to mention even data storage such as cloud. One of its benefits is ease of access and bringing an eco friendly solution because in the past we would need to cut ton of trees to publish books and magazines, and not to mention the ton of wasted paper for files.

[davis196]

You are worried because people own less books and magazines?What's wrong with you?
I would be worried if the people don't own their homes and cars,if they don't have any property.
Anyway,that's how capitalism works.Money,power and resources are going to a rich elite,while the majority becomes poor..

[Squa7ch]

You are right. Technologies keep developing, and everything gets smaller and more advanced.
People are getting rid of cash too. We start leaning toward to credits and virtual currency.

I think it should not be a worry. Holding stuff is in fact more dangerous than hoding nothing. Imagine it is like having $10k in your wallet is way more dangerous than having $10k of credits in your bank account.

[Dreamchaser21]

You are worried because people own less books and magazines?What's wrong with you?
I would be worried if the people don't own their homes and cars,if they don't have any property.
Anyway,that's how capitalism works.Money,power and resources are going to a rich elite,while the majority becomes poor..

Exactly, not everyone wants to own or read books, we cannot dictate them on what they should have after all its their life and because of our technology is growing maybe they find this thing more convenient. I'd rather focus on my life, well nothing to worry about our growing technology we just need to know how to balance our social life.

[droptableguy2]

You are worried because people own less books and magazines?What's wrong with you?
I would be worried if the people don't own their homes and cars,if they don't have any property.
Anyway,that's how capitalism works.Money,power and resources are going to a rich elite,while the majority becomes poor..

That's what I'm interested in. Mostly homes and vehicles and daily activities. There are few other things that are not too important. And that certainly does not matter because everything is conjecture, not real.

[trecore4]

Its true that digital world is bringing a sense of having nothing in your own hands but just 0'z and 1'z I guess. All you have is the device which connects you and those 0 and 1 number codes. It is not just about the books but also about all kinds of knowledge hubs, and now a days fiat money too. With the digital world, we are using more digital money rather than physical notes. So that doesnt mean we dont having anything because with those digital money also we have valued currencies with which we can buy valuable stuff too. This is why its either some stuff or no stuff at all.

[faupou]

This is a very good thing if it's true. because the internet can reduce the use of goods that can cause pollution that affects the environment but can also harm some parties because some parties depend on the profits generated from these items. not used. but also beneficial for those who make amazon kindle.

[Hydrogen]

Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I've been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.

The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionised how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com does.

https://www.afr.com/opinion/americans-own-less-stuff-because-of-the-internet-and-thats-a-worry-20180812-h13vkd

Interesting perspective.

There are many similar trends. Consumers used to be able to repair their own cars. Today its more difficult with automakers making an effort to lock consumers out of their own vehicles. Specialized computer hardware is often necessary to diagnose issues much less fix them. While tesla and Elon Musk have achieved some good in terms of shifting power consumption from internal combustion engines in vehicles to more efficient powerplants with less of a carbon footprint, tesla is also known for having very stringent terms of purchase. In some ways tesla owners are locked out of their own vehicles by software and EULA.

There are producers of goods who want to completely shut down 2nd hand markets where products are sold in flea markets or yard sales.

There are other examples of consumers perhaps losing rights and freedom. While large corporations, banks and governments perhaps are gaining more power.

Is it a trend people should worry about? That's up for debate. I think its something not many are conscious or aware of.

[supermine]

Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I've been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.

The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionised how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com does.

https://www.afr.com/opinion/americans-own-less-stuff-because-of-the-internet-and-thats-a-worry-20180812-h13vkd

I don't think this is such a big problem. It may actually be a good thing. Imagine how much paper we are saving by not printing so many books. I can see that the worry could be that theoretically Amazon could just say, "The books are ours, you can't read them anymore." I don't think they could do that legally, for one thing. The other thing is that, even if they did do that, there's plenty of competition. Everybody would just go to another company. That is the main reason that Amazon would never do that. They want to make money. I think owning less things is actually a great thing. Do you think that to be a "true American" you need to own lots of things? The bigger the better? I think that's a relatively new idea. Did the founding fathers think like that?

Saving trees can one advantage of involving into more internet stuffs for reading rather than go with the traditional books were saving trees and lot of man power expenses,but it has the disadvantage of making people more lazy and getting addicted to the internet by just looking at the internet for everything.So this has positive as well as the negative we need to use the advanced technology in more beneficial way.

[Phenoca]

It would be nice if that were the case. If you're talking about fiction, news and recreation then the market is controlled by the consumers.  There will always be pirating, and backlash against digital rights management - torrenting sites and PS4 vs Xbox One come to mind, when the latter cancelled their digital rights management in response to consumer-backlash, making their games easier to pirate or resell. Steam incentivizes buyers with sales, achievements, and the ability to download to any computer. I think if a company is focused on making their game pirate-proof then it means they don't trust their users to support their product  

But it would be nice if consolidating entertainment and media on the internet led to less consumerism, since buying excessive manufactured goods has led to mass extinction and runaway climate change   I think the services that sell best indicate where the demand is. Bookstores can only shelve so many books. Without the internet we wouldn't have the quick growth of new sub-genres in literature, and it would be much harder for indie producers to reach their target audience. Internet streaming services gives consumers a much greater level of control over what they watch. It is nice to see what other fans of the same light novel have réad.

I'll ask a question. Do you agree with Gary Kildall or with Bill Gates, and which strategy is most successful in entertainment and media? Does the industry leader support to product creators (OS supporting app makers), or does the industry leader monopolize everything (cable news & pop music)? I think whichever method you choose, you have to please the consumers.

[MiningDog]

Saving trees can one advantage of involving into more internet stuffs for reading rather than go with the traditional books were saving trees and lot of man power expenses,but it has the disadvantage of making people more lazy and getting addicted to the internet by just looking at the internet for everything.So this has positive as well as the negative we need to use the advanced technology in more beneficial way.

What is the "it" you're talking about here? Electronic books? How can electronic books make people more lazy? Now people don't need to go to the store to buy books, but they'll probably spend about the same amount of time reading as they did before. If you're talking about the internet in general, how is looking things up online a symptom of laziness? What would be the "non-lazy" option? To go to the library and look things up? I think, in this sense, technology is just saving our time and giving us instant access to the information of the whole world.

[dothebeats]

That's why it's powerful to read any EULAs or Terms and Conditions before doing any purchases online because you just don't know what you're getting roped into. Many companies are taking advantage of people not keen enough on reading any ToCs or EULAs to still have some say on any purchases the owner did, especially when it comes to software and digital ownership. It's quite saddening that most people tend to just go over Kindle and buy a digital book rather than keep a physical copy of it which I think can be resold if ever the need arises. Consumers' purchasing knowledge has since declined, and are allowing capitalists to capitalize on these habits that the average consumer have developed since the advent of the internet.

[supermine]

Saving trees can one advantage of involving into more internet stuffs for reading rather than go with the traditional books were saving trees and lot of man power expenses,but it has the disadvantage of making people more lazy and getting addicted to the internet by just looking at the internet for everything.So this has positive as well as the negative we need to use the advanced technology in more beneficial way.

What is the "it" you're talking about here? Electronic books? How can electronic books make people more lazy? Now people don't need to go to the store to buy books, but they'll probably spend about the same amount of time reading as they did before. If you're talking about the internet in general, how is looking things up online a symptom of laziness? What would be the "non-lazy" option? To go to the library and look things up? I think, in this sense, technology is just saving our time and giving us instant access to the information of the whole world.

This makes the people lazy,I am talking about it general the new technologies will make the people more lazier.If we are in the 19th century we will be like that?And also we won't go through all the pages in the electronic books unlike the paper books (in my opinion).

[goshay97]

I think that the purchasing power and consuming will just switch direction.  This may actually help the common man as they can attempt to monetize the internet.  They may own less stuff but in the end spend the same amount. 

[KINGCHACHA1]

Look at the way internet have reduce money use for printing books and magazines. The internet is of great benefit to humanity generally. Cryptocurrency will reduce the cost of producing fiat currency if Government allow it to function.

[hatshepsut93]

That's why it's powerful to read any EULAs or Terms and Conditions before doing any purchases online because you just don't know what you're getting roped into. Many companies are taking advantage of people not keen enough on reading any ToCs or EULAs to still have some say on any purchases the owner did, especially when it comes to software and digital ownership. It's quite saddening that most people tend to just go over Kindle and buy a digital book rather than keep a physical copy of it which I think can be resold if ever the need arises. Consumers' purchasing knowledge has since declined, and are allowing capitalists to capitalize on these habits that the average consumer have developed since the advent of the internet.

The article describes how this contract-dictated ownership is a bad thing because it undermines capitalism and individualism, but this is so dumb because contracts are the corner stone of anarchistic individualism theories like voluntaryism, agorism and anacho-capitlalism. In fact, imposing some regulations in this field would actually be a step towards socialism.

This problem with contracts should be solved by market means like educating the population about unfair terms, calling for boycotts, promoting alternative products, including those that are free and open-source, etc. This problem is not exclusive to digital world, for example the similar happens with physical items when companies prohibit buyers from doing repairs and modifications.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I don't think this is such a big problem.

It's not only not a big problem, it's not a problem at all in my opinion.  In fact, anyone can still own a physical book if they want to.  There's nothing stopping people from buying paperbacks and magazines or anything else.  Has anyone here had to move and they have boxes full of books?  It's a nightmare because of the weight.  Sort of like having to move boxes of vinyl records, which is another 'problem' that has been solved by technology.

This article is a puff opinion piece, much like almost everything else you find on the internet these days.  Very little thinking involved, biased, and designed to provoke some level of outrage.  Media has always been that way, but on the internet it's everywhere and on many sites there aren't even any journalistic standards.

If individuals ever think they are being stiffed by not actually owning their books, they will probably revolt and start buying them again.  This just isn't the problem the article thinks it is.