The Predatory Side of Digital Ownership & Subscriptions

Red
Sep 11, 2023
4 min read

Updated: Oct 1, 2024

In an increasingly digital world, ownership has taken on a new form—one that is often deceptive and fraught with pitfalls. The rise of subscription-based models for digital content and services has given consumers access to a plethora of options, but it comes at a price. In this article, we will delve into the issues surrounding the subscription model and digital ownership, shedding light on how these concepts can be predatory for consumers.

PHOTO CREDIT: Andrés Rodríguez from Pixabay

The Subscription Model Trap:

One of the key issues with the subscription model is the lack of real ownership. When you subscribe to a service or purchase a digital copy of something, you might assume that you have secured access indefinitely. However, the reality is quite different. Companies can alter the terms of the agreement at any time, potentially leaving you without access to the product or service you thought you owned.

Consider this scenario: You purchase a graphic design program for a one-time cost of €60. You enjoy using the program and continue to play it for several years. Suddenly, the developer decides to switch to a subscription-based model, charging €5 per month for access. While this might seem reasonable on a monthly basis, it adds up to €60 over a year—equivalent to the cost of buying the program outright.

But here's the catch: You're now locked into a perpetual payment cycle. If you stop paying, you lose access to the tool you got used to using and once thought you owned. This dynamic is problematic because it can end up costing you more in the long run and gives companies the power to change the rules of ownership at their discretion.

The Erosion of Digital Ownership Rights:

A study published in Emerald Insight highlights the correlation between consumers' perceptions of their ownership of digital media content and the perceived importance of various digital rights and ownership rights [1]. This study serves as a warning to consumers about the erosion of their digital ownership rights.

Tech companies are increasingly adopting subscription and consumption models as alternatives to traditional licenses [2]. While these models offer flexibility, they also come with a hidden cost—the gradual erosion of consumer rights.

The FOMO Factor:

Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is a potent psychological phenomenon that extends beyond social media and into the world of digital ownership. Game developers, in particular, have harnessed the power of FOMO to drive interest and revenue.

In the gaming industry, FOMO is often used to describe the anxiety around missing out on in-game items or activities available for a limited time. Battle passes, which provide additional in-game content through a tiered system, are a prime example of this strategy. Players are enticed to complete challenges and unlock rewards within a set time frame, creating a sense of urgency.

While this may enhance engagement, it can also lead to addiction. FOMO-driven gaming behaviors can be detrimental to individuals' well-being, as players feel compelled to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of in-game content.

The Dangers of Digital Ownership:

Digital ownership is further complicated by the policies of major companies. For instance, Ubisoft's policy dictates that if your account remains inactive for two years, it will be deleted, along with any purchased games. EA has a similar policy, deactivating accounts inactive for 24 months or more, potentially resulting in the loss of associated games and content.

These policies highlight a disconcerting reality: consumers don't truly own the digital products they purchase. Instead, they are subject to the whims of the companies providing those products. While users technically agree to these terms in user agreements, most do not read them, and companies exploit this knowledge.

The Immoral Business Practice:

Companies argue that they need these policies to save on data storage costs, but the ethical implications are glaring. While users may agree to these terms in user agreements, it's common knowledge that most people don't read them. This exploitation of consumer trust is a questionable business practice.

The potential benefits gained from data storage savings pale in comparison to the damage inflicted on consumer trust and a company's reputation. The erosion of digital ownership rights and the exploitation of FOMO raise serious ethical questions.

Conclusion:

In the digital age, the concept of ownership has become murky. Subscription models and the fear of missing out have given rise to a new era of digital consumption. However, the predatory aspects of these practices, coupled with the erosion of digital ownership rights, should give consumers a wake-up call.

The Graphic Design Program example has an impact on us at Politdigm because the industry-standard tools are now only available as part of an expensive subscription service. In the past, these tools were available for a more affordable one-time purchase.

The next time you subscribe to a service or purchase a digital product, remember that you may not truly own what you're paying for. The allure of convenience and the fear of missing out can blind us to the long-term costs and the erosion of our digital rights.

Explore more with us! Join our Newsletter, support us on Patreon, listen to our Podcast, and discover our other captivating content. Together, let's shape a better future. #Politdigm