how can that statement be a license if it doesn't license anything? newspeak?
it's not even a licensing agreement, that publishers often try to get their customers to confuse with licenses
they're so deep down this virtual-rabbit hole that they start believing the lies they made up to twist public opinion and law
copyright grants its holder the power to exclude others from certain activities over a creative work
the holder doesn't own the work, but that power to exclude
but then the lie that they own the work starts being used to grow copyright to give them more powers to exclude other uses of the work, for longer times
and then they demand DRM to expand those exclusive rights to whatever they wish, even if they're not related at all with uses reserved by copyright law
then we get people sued and prohibited from sharing programs because they might be used to share copyrighted works. we get demands for payment to post links to news articles. we get publishing oligopolies that beat up authors while authors defend the expansion of the powers of the oligopolies. but because you've settled inside that virtual-rabbit hole, you think that's as it should be, and that people who don't fall for the lies are the bad ones.
https://mastodon.social/@mmasnick/109462530750842480
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/109461421731443118