Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/apple-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-its-definition-of-the-word-buy/
402 comments
Transferrable software/media licenses present a challenge that can be either a technical or a social/economical one.
There is a high temptation to abuse the system due to the ease of making a copy. On one hand, it can be attacked with a zero-trust outlook from technical angle (DRM). On the other hand, in a society with higher minimum quality of life and satisfaction eliminating required trust may do more harm than good, as really no one would want to go through the trouble of making illegal copies.
I strongly agree that “selling” something you do not get to own should not even be a valid concept.
There is a high temptation to abuse the system due to the ease of making a copy. On one hand, it can be attacked with a zero-trust outlook from technical angle (DRM). On the other hand, in a society with higher minimum quality of life and satisfaction eliminating required trust may do more harm than good, as really no one would want to go through the trouble of making illegal copies.
I strongly agree that “selling” something you do not get to own should not even be a valid concept.
Maybe this is the real killer use-case for NFTs?
Honestly, it is a decent use case. Sell NFTs that grant the owner the right to play / use a certain song, movie, ebook, etc. Ideally have some sort of file storage layer that only grants the ability to stream the content if you own the nft - not sure how feasible that is, so the alternative is to establish a few providers that can stream the content, and get paid a small amount for their services by the movie studios.
Reselling rights don't have to be granted, and if they are, they could even include "fees" for reselling to limit a rental market from taking place.
Reselling rights don't have to be granted, and if they are, they could even include "fees" for reselling to limit a rental market from taking place.
I don’t like the approaches involving NFT (and blockchain in general) because no matter how you spin it, it’s ultimately following the zero interpersonal trust route.
Amazon at least here in Germany offers either to rent or to buy. Now whatever their ToS say, there is a certain expectation to the word "buy" and I'm fairly optimistic that courts here would take a dim view on clauses in ToS allowing a one sided revocation. Even if it is only a license to stream it is a property right. In B2B one may put some twisted clauses into contracts but in B2C such attempts are regularly reigned in.
We should require that the person who is having an account terminated be compensated by refunding the purchase price, plus interest.
> Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely
Remember this sentence to change your mind for the next time you see some movie to buy online.
Remember this sentence to change your mind for the next time you see some movie to buy online.
I always assumed they would be available as long as Apple or iTunes doesn't go under. Guess i'm not a reasonable consumer but luckily I haven't spent much money on them.
> Guess i'm not a reasonable consumer but luckily I haven't spent much money on them.
I used to have an account on which I spent at least $400. After an attempt to change the email address associated to the account I got locked out. It seems the same email address was used to create a different account in the past and the move just destroyed my access and any possible recourse.
So I switched to Android and stayed on Android for the last 7 years. No more iPhones for me, just remembering how my content got stolen makes me turn away.
I used to be a big fan of iPhones when they came out, even had a first gen iPhone a couple of months after launch. But after losing access to my content it all turned into the feeling that I am being abused.
I used to have an account on which I spent at least $400. After an attempt to change the email address associated to the account I got locked out. It seems the same email address was used to create a different account in the past and the move just destroyed my access and any possible recourse.
So I switched to Android and stayed on Android for the last 7 years. No more iPhones for me, just remembering how my content got stolen makes me turn away.
I used to be a big fan of iPhones when they came out, even had a first gen iPhone a couple of months after launch. But after losing access to my content it all turned into the feeling that I am being abused.
Never had the feeling of being abused but I didn't like having to buy into their closed ecosystem so I've been an Android user and programmer ever since my iPhone 3G.
And people look at me with gaze when I tell them that I don’t want iCloud. I would much rather pay for a service I can use on any platform so that I can switch out of Apple whenever I want to. Apple fanboys will grill me for this, but at least I will be saving my future self from headaches.
It's not until Apple goes under: it's until whatever licensing deal Apple got for some movie is over.
But Apple didn't go under, they cut the victim off.
I've spent a lot of money on iTunes content (Nearing 1,000 purchased movies on AppleTV), and my assumption was the same. As long as Apple/iTunes doesn't go under, and given I don't do anything to violate Apple's terms, I will have access to this content.
I understand I can lose access, I'm not paying for the content in the idea that I own it forever even if Apple goes under or I get terminated, but I have perpetual access to it given the circumstances don't change, and I pay for the convenience of this.
If I had expected to own it forever, I'd probably have bought DVD's, not digital.
I understand I can lose access, I'm not paying for the content in the idea that I own it forever even if Apple goes under or I get terminated, but I have perpetual access to it given the circumstances don't change, and I pay for the convenience of this.
If I had expected to own it forever, I'd probably have bought DVD's, not digital.
> If I had expected to own it forever, I'd probably have bought DVD's, not digital.
This is the opposite of what it should be. DVDs degrade over time, and can last for as little as 10 years. Digital should be mean transportable and convertible indefinitely.
This is the opposite of what it should be. DVDs degrade over time, and can last for as little as 10 years. Digital should be mean transportable and convertible indefinitely.
Sure but who's gonna pay to keep those servers up in perpetuity?
I would never buy digital thinking I'll have access indefinitely. At least with DVD's I can rip them and burn them on new DVD's if I wanted them to be "forever"
I would never buy digital thinking I'll have access indefinitely. At least with DVD's I can rip them and burn them on new DVD's if I wanted them to be "forever"
Make DRM free versions available for download? Music has had to go that route so that people can 'own' their downloads.
Maybe a self-hosted auth server of some kind is possible?
Adobe recently stopped letting you install CS3 even if you have the CDs because they took the auth server down. Do you think there was a reasonable expectation that when someone paid thousands of dollars for those discs, that they 'owned' them and had the right to install them repeatedly on their own computers?
>https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite.html
>You can no longer reinstall Creative Suite 2, 3 or 4 even if you have the original installation disks. The aging activation servers for those apps had to be retired.
Looks like they just added CS4 to the list...which is still usable software (and in fact offers features that are currently unavailable!)
Maybe a self-hosted auth server of some kind is possible?
Adobe recently stopped letting you install CS3 even if you have the CDs because they took the auth server down. Do you think there was a reasonable expectation that when someone paid thousands of dollars for those discs, that they 'owned' them and had the right to install them repeatedly on their own computers?
>https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite.html
>You can no longer reinstall Creative Suite 2, 3 or 4 even if you have the original installation disks. The aging activation servers for those apps had to be retired.
Looks like they just added CS4 to the list...which is still usable software (and in fact offers features that are currently unavailable!)
The company can use part of your purchase price to buy a long term debt instrument (e.g. a 30-year T-bond) and use the yield to keep the server running.
Or, more realistically and prosaically, they can and should debit the net present liability of keeping the server running in perpetuity from their corporate accounts at the time of purchase. Accountancy knows how to value such things and finance delights in monetizing them.
Or, more realistically and prosaically, they can and should debit the net present liability of keeping the server running in perpetuity from their corporate accounts at the time of purchase. Accountancy knows how to value such things and finance delights in monetizing them.
Do printed DVDs last that little? That sounds more like the lifespan of burned discs.
It's mostly dependent on heat, humidity, and light.
And then of course handling.
And the actual player and how much it might contact the disc (eg inserting in certain slot drives repeatedly can brush dust/dirt on the surface).
From experience, yes, they can. Make backups of the DVDs, CDs and Blu-ray discs you care about.
Apple and friends will do their best to avoid a ruling and laws which could establish this interpretation because it would end their practice to terminate accounts with the reason "Computer says no".
When contracting with consumers these companies should be forced to be liable and accountable for their algorithmic decisions and arbitrary policy enforcement.
That wouldn't be unreasonable at all. "They clicked the accept EULA button" is not a valid excuse.
Pretending that consumers are able to negotiate a fair contract with Apple is denying reality.
When contracting with consumers these companies should be forced to be liable and accountable for their algorithmic decisions and arbitrary policy enforcement.
That wouldn't be unreasonable at all. "They clicked the accept EULA button" is not a valid excuse.
Pretending that consumers are able to negotiate a fair contract with Apple is denying reality.
Especially because every so often we as consumers get an email saying “we made some updates to the EULA / ToS, here’s the full 50 pages document without any markup as to what actually changed, you are now bound by these new terms that aren’t exactly the ones you initially agreed to”
> Remember this sentence to change your mind for the next time you see some movie to buy online.
If you use iTunes, and "add to library," like I do, you'll see how often albums get removed or replaced or remixed. It's unnecessary and unnerving. The labels are constantly faffing about with albums. Every couple of months, I'll go to play an album, and find that it only has, say, 2 songs in it. Sometimes I can go back and re-add it to my library, sometimes, there's a new "remastered" copy, and sometimes those songs are just no longer available in iTunes. I pay for the subscription, and don't buy music. And I'm glad. I don't know why these changes wouldn't happen to me even if I had paid for it, but maybe that would be exempted? If someone can tell me that this doesn't happen if I buy the album, I would snatch up some of my favorites right away.
If you use iTunes, and "add to library," like I do, you'll see how often albums get removed or replaced or remixed. It's unnecessary and unnerving. The labels are constantly faffing about with albums. Every couple of months, I'll go to play an album, and find that it only has, say, 2 songs in it. Sometimes I can go back and re-add it to my library, sometimes, there's a new "remastered" copy, and sometimes those songs are just no longer available in iTunes. I pay for the subscription, and don't buy music. And I'm glad. I don't know why these changes wouldn't happen to me even if I had paid for it, but maybe that would be exempted? If someone can tell me that this doesn't happen if I buy the album, I would snatch up some of my favorites right away.
I have "purchased" movies from Amazon, movies for which Amazon later lost streaming rights, and which are no longer in their catalogue - and so my "purchase" was temporary. I am sure their EULA expressly permits this but it's irrelevant now as I have learned my lesson. I now longer "purchase" digital products unless I can download them after purchase. When this first occurred, I was angry. Now, I just consider myself educated to avoid Amazon at all cost.
The same stuff also happened to some albums that I actually “bought” long before Apple started a music subscription service.
iTunes music is DRM free if you download it, so this is one case where you really could make the access indefinite if you wanted.
>If you use iTunes....
Is this iTunes or Apple Music ?
Because it happens all the time on Apple Music which is why I hate streaming services.
Is this iTunes or Apple Music ?
Because it happens all the time on Apple Music which is why I hate streaming services.
Ah, yes. You are right. I forget there’s a distinction.
I do not think consumers know this at all and very much do agree that what they buy will be available to them during their lifetime at least. When I told friends that this can (and does) happen to books on Kindle that they paid for, they were very surprised. I am a reasonable consumer but yes, of course I assume that if it does not say 'rent this movie or book for a day' but instead uses the word 'buy' (often next to the button rent, so they they are making a distinction!), it will not dissapear. If it does disappear, I should get a refund, no matter the reason for it disappearing.
If it was an object in your house, and they made it disappear and left you some money, that would be theft.
Thoughts?
I'm not convinced 'making digital goods disappear' is good. I know WHY it's done and totally understand the justification, but I continue to dislike and distrust the practice.
Should we normalize the idea that everything we own is fungible, at the discretion of a third party, for its exchange value? Under what conditions do they get to swap out our property for replacements or money?
Thoughts?
I'm not convinced 'making digital goods disappear' is good. I know WHY it's done and totally understand the justification, but I continue to dislike and distrust the practice.
Should we normalize the idea that everything we own is fungible, at the discretion of a third party, for its exchange value? Under what conditions do they get to swap out our property for replacements or money?
Seems crazy to me. Sure, all their content won't always be available to purchase. But once you've purchased something, how can that not always stay in your library? It is just a long term rental, not a purchase, if it can disappear and that isn't obvious to anybody without looking into it (and how should you know to look into it in the first place?)
[deleted]
Amazon argues the same exact thing if you buy a movie digitally from them. It's only available to you for as long as they host it on their servers. This is why I pirate shit that I can't find on Netflix or Prime Video. Buying digital content is merely "long term rental" and really needs to be better advertised as that.
> This is why I pirate shit
I stopped seeing any value in purchasing/renting rights to movies and shows from the streaming giants. Want to watch The Office, sorry removed, no longer on Netflix. Oh, you are in a country that has a funny name, content not available in your region. Oh, you are trying to access your Hulu subscription from a Linux device? Max video res capped at 480p. It is such anti-consumer moves that makes me not feel bad for pirating.
IMO, the most maximum returns on home media consumption is gained by acquiring and archiving your own collection of media. I don't have to ask anyone for a license to watch my favorite movie from 1999 when I have the copy on my plex.
I stopped seeing any value in purchasing/renting rights to movies and shows from the streaming giants. Want to watch The Office, sorry removed, no longer on Netflix. Oh, you are in a country that has a funny name, content not available in your region. Oh, you are trying to access your Hulu subscription from a Linux device? Max video res capped at 480p. It is such anti-consumer moves that makes me not feel bad for pirating.
IMO, the most maximum returns on home media consumption is gained by acquiring and archiving your own collection of media. I don't have to ask anyone for a license to watch my favorite movie from 1999 when I have the copy on my plex.
If it makes you feel better, Hulu is capped at 480p outside of Edge or Chrome on Windows, and Safari on the Mac.
I wonder if we will ever see a model similar to Qobuz/Bandcamp for movies and TV shows. These services allow downloading your purchases as DRM-free flac files.
As long as the MPAA exists, this will never happen.
Apple got the RIAA to go along with it, they definitely could get the movie studios to if they wanted (the pirates already broke Netflix, Amazon, and Disney's encryption, it's not helping anyway).
I think the bigger problem now is that people don't buy enough movies for anyone to want to chase this down, and if you want to own a movie, 99% of the time I can get the Blu-Ray+digital version for the same price of the digital one, and then the license syncs to like five different video services. And if they all ban me, then I still have the Blu-Ray.
I think the bigger problem now is that people don't buy enough movies for anyone to want to chase this down, and if you want to own a movie, 99% of the time I can get the Blu-Ray+digital version for the same price of the digital one, and then the license syncs to like five different video services. And if they all ban me, then I still have the Blu-Ray.
The MPAA vs RIAA is sort of an apples vs oranges comparison though. Audio is much easier to compress, and MP3 made it very easy to make files small enough to download via dial-up modems. Video had years to go before quality was good enough at small enough sizes to make them a viable thing on the internet. Because of that, the MPAA got to watch/learn from mistakes that RIAA made in trying to protect its kingdom. Rather than fight the digital inevitablity like RIAA did, MPAA allowed the digital with DRM. This allowed for the "honest" public to have legal viable methods of watching the content. The useless tact RIAA fought caused its own demise in the fight making an entire generation of kids think that music should be free because that's all they knew. Their allowing of DRM free FLAC files was a white flag. MPAA is in a much stronger position to allow that to happen.
Also I don't think there ever were physical audio formats with DRM? CD came out way before piracy was anyone's concern, and then it was too late to change anything.
On the other hand, all digital video formats have always had the technical capability for DRM, starting with DVD.
On the other hand, all digital video formats have always had the technical capability for DRM, starting with DVD.
> Also I don't think there ever were physical audio formats with DRM?
MiniDiscs had "copy protection"[0] and this format was supported by major record labels[1]. They were first released in 1992.
> all digital video formats have always had the technical capability for DRM, starting with DVD.
By starting with DVD, you're skipping the DRM-free formats of Betamax, VHS, and LaserDisc then? Unless by "had the technical capability for" you mean "could be later extended to add", in which case there was Macrovision[2] for VHS, but also Extended Copy Protection[3] for CDs, also known as "the Sony rootkit".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisc#Copy_protection
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MiniDisc_releases
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Protection_System
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection
MiniDiscs had "copy protection"[0] and this format was supported by major record labels[1]. They were first released in 1992.
> all digital video formats have always had the technical capability for DRM, starting with DVD.
By starting with DVD, you're skipping the DRM-free formats of Betamax, VHS, and LaserDisc then? Unless by "had the technical capability for" you mean "could be later extended to add", in which case there was Macrovision[2] for VHS, but also Extended Copy Protection[3] for CDs, also known as "the Sony rootkit".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisc#Copy_protection
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MiniDisc_releases
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Protection_System
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection
> MiniDiscs had "copy protection"[0] and this format was supported by major record labels[1].
From what I can tell, pre-recorded MiniDiscs were never popular. People bought blank ones and recorded their own pirated mp3s on there.
But, yes, that makes me technically wrong with my first comment because it is a physical audio format that has the technical capability for DRM.
> By starting with DVD, you're skipping the DRM-free formats of Betamax, VHS, and LaserDisc then?
They're all analog and so you can't make an exact copy. At least not without obscenely expensive studio-grade equipment. Yes, that didn't stop people from making copies of VHS tapes, and yes, you could tell how many times it was copied by the picture quality.
From what I can tell, pre-recorded MiniDiscs were never popular. People bought blank ones and recorded their own pirated mp3s on there.
But, yes, that makes me technically wrong with my first comment because it is a physical audio format that has the technical capability for DRM.
> By starting with DVD, you're skipping the DRM-free formats of Betamax, VHS, and LaserDisc then?
They're all analog and so you can't make an exact copy. At least not without obscenely expensive studio-grade equipment. Yes, that didn't stop people from making copies of VHS tapes, and yes, you could tell how many times it was copied by the picture quality.
You couldn't copy a Laser Disc though, so the only way to obtain one was either physcially steal it or you know, pay for it. VHS copies could be made, and were, of the Laser Disc. This is what scared the studios of DVD since the quality was so much better than VHS dubs. Macrovision was a joke to get around. Almost as easy as DeCSS. Macrovision bypass just took some extra video gear (something with a TBC), so it was slightly harder than the free DeCSS library. Betamax didn't last long enough for a copied gray market to come along in my area, so I don't have first hand experience with difficulties of beta dubs.
>Also I don't think there ever were physical audio formats with DRM?
Yes, there certainly were - basically all early digital audio media were encumbered with SCMS[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
Yes, there certainly were - basically all early digital audio media were encumbered with SCMS[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
To be fair, Apple has upgraded the quality of several movie titles I have purchased as HD to to 4k, without a charge.
Personally I treat my Apple purchases as volatile and approach the budgeting for them similarly as I would budget for events such as movie tickets.
Personally I treat my Apple purchases as volatile and approach the budgeting for them similarly as I would budget for events such as movie tickets.
Conversely, I think a lot of people buy digital movies and never watch them because they want to own them. We all probably have friends who buy games they never play off of steam.
>> Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely.
I guess I will soon start a site about the amount of crap and hypocrisy modern Apple are saying. I dont know exactly what happened but post Steve Jobs Apple are getting ridiculous with their defence.
I guess I will soon start a site about the amount of crap and hypocrisy modern Apple are saying. I dont know exactly what happened but post Steve Jobs Apple are getting ridiculous with their defence.
Do it please !
>> Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely
>Remember this sentence to change your mind for the next time you see some movie to buy online.
I read this as "no reasonable consumer would trust us".
>Remember this sentence to change your mind for the next time you see some movie to buy online.
I read this as "no reasonable consumer would trust us".
That's the "Tucker Carlson defense".[1] "The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation."
That worked in a defamation case, but the First Amendment defense probably won't work in a false advertising case.
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-M...
That worked in a defamation case, but the First Amendment defense probably won't work in a false advertising case.
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-M...
I do. This is the exact reason why I've never bought anything digitally. Paying real money just to have some bytes streamed to you just doesn't feel right. And, I mean, you can't even resell or lend the thing.
University libraries all over the world would disagree, their archivists make very sure that digital journals are still available to their audience even if the subscription has expired. Access to digital content is a solved problem, even though Apple would have you believe otherwise.
How does this work? Is it normal for university libraries to keep a huge secret backup collection of PDFs? What happens if the university chooses to discontinue its subscription, as opposed to the publisher going out of business?
Contracts stipulate that material that has been paid for remains available even after the subscription is cancelled, that's usual for publishers. There's also agreements that material is transferred to archive sites if a publisher goes out of business and finds no buyer.
I wouldn't know about ToU violations, universities routinely get banned from arXiv for weeks because CS departments hand out assignments to write a webcrawler - no clue what kind of grovelling is requited there, but it must be well ritualized now.
I wouldn't know about ToU violations, universities routinely get banned from arXiv for weeks because CS departments hand out assignments to write a webcrawler - no clue what kind of grovelling is requited there, but it must be well ritualized now.
Historically media has had a limited play-life. 78s, 45s and 33 warped, broke or got scratched, etc., tapes wore out, broke, got tangled etc., CDs scratched or deteriorated after some time. There are exceptional specimens for all the above, but a good number don’t survive long unless owned by an aficionado who took care of their media.
With digital you can have backups and in theory they could last forever as you convert the format into whatever is popular.
How do they price this? Do they not do CRCs and hashes and let your bits rot over time and have you buy a new one? How do you approach this commercially? Make music or video very, very faddish so even if it lasts forever no one will want to listen to or watch something out of style ten yeas hence?
I’m not defending Apple. I’m asking how do you price things reasonably if they potentially last forever?
With digital you can have backups and in theory they could last forever as you convert the format into whatever is popular.
How do they price this? Do they not do CRCs and hashes and let your bits rot over time and have you buy a new one? How do you approach this commercially? Make music or video very, very faddish so even if it lasts forever no one will want to listen to or watch something out of style ten yeas hence?
I’m not defending Apple. I’m asking how do you price things reasonably if they potentially last forever?
[deleted]
For CD’s it’s legal to make backup copies in the US which are digital and thus don’t degrade.
Many of the oldest recordings still work, and can be played indefinitely with an optical needle. The time value of money means the possible purchase by a small fraction of buyers 20+ years out isn’t worth much at the time of sale. It’s only moving forward in time that makes anyone care about these sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable
Many of the oldest recordings still work, and can be played indefinitely with an optical needle. The time value of money means the possible purchase by a small fraction of buyers 20+ years out isn’t worth much at the time of sale. It’s only moving forward in time that makes anyone care about these sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable
I’m curious are iTunes and similar stores licensing the music to you? I’m guessing it is a license and not ownership. In either case I can see them addressing this problem of lower velocity with subscription only licensing where you license tunes for X amount of time.
Obviously not in the interest of consumers but I can see why sellers would go this route.
Obviously not in the interest of consumers but I can see why sellers would go this route.
It said "Buy" on the buttons on iTunes the last time I used it years ago.
All Copyright is a license, you buy a physical CD you are also buying a copyright license. You are attempting to make a distinction when none is present or valid
No you don’t get a license with a CD, you just get an object.
It’s only copying that’s protected not existing physical copies. It’s the same with a book you get the physical book and that’s it. If the copyright expired then you can do all kinds of stuff with the book that you don’t otherwise get to do, barring a few exceptions that apply universally.
It’s only copying that’s protected not existing physical copies. It’s the same with a book you get the physical book and that’s it. If the copyright expired then you can do all kinds of stuff with the book that you don’t otherwise get to do, barring a few exceptions that apply universally.
You're forgetting the performance license. With a (consumer grade) CD you get the rights for private performance of a non-commercial nature.
You don't usually get the rights to play the music for large audiences or for commercial use - those cost extra.
If you didn't get those rights then you couldn't even play the CD in the privacy of your own home, as that constitutes a performance of the work.
(Of course I kind of think there's something fundamentally strange with the idea of having to get "performance rights" for a recording that you supposedly own, but that doesn't change the law right now.)
You don't usually get the rights to play the music for large audiences or for commercial use - those cost extra.
If you didn't get those rights then you couldn't even play the CD in the privacy of your own home, as that constitutes a performance of the work.
(Of course I kind of think there's something fundamentally strange with the idea of having to get "performance rights" for a recording that you supposedly own, but that doesn't change the law right now.)
[deleted]
Copyright does not include an exclusive right to private performance. There is nothing to license here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
Licenses are not all the same. They have different terms.
Has has been perfectly legal for decades for a person to make backups of their physical media
So this line of thought is completely incorrect, digital distribution did not invent the ability to have backups of media you purchased
So this line of thought is completely incorrect, digital distribution did not invent the ability to have backups of media you purchased
That’s not in dispute. What I’m saying is for the most part these media wore out and often times people had to repurchase those media. I’ve known people who had to replace many of their CDs. They didn’t get to go to the store and “return the defective one” for a warranty replacement.
and I have known many people that lose digital data because they did not back it up, they had to then repurchase that content, including things like DRM free ebooks, or drm free media
This is not a valid line of objection, just because if someone destroyed their CD and did not have a backup would have to rebuy, same is true if someone did not backup their DRM free content.
This HAS NOTHING TO DO with the ability to backup, or the fact that physical media may degrade over time. That is a non sequitur and a red herring all in one
In reality this is not even about digital media copyright, but more about the rights of digital platforms to unperson you and seize your legally purchase products for any arbitrary reason (or in many cases no reason at all)
This is not a valid line of objection, just because if someone destroyed their CD and did not have a backup would have to rebuy, same is true if someone did not backup their DRM free content.
This HAS NOTHING TO DO with the ability to backup, or the fact that physical media may degrade over time. That is a non sequitur and a red herring all in one
In reality this is not even about digital media copyright, but more about the rights of digital platforms to unperson you and seize your legally purchase products for any arbitrary reason (or in many cases no reason at all)
I agree with your point that Apple should not be able to yank/revoke access and treat your account differently than anyone else’s other than by court order. This is worrisome.
My initial question was tangential and more thinking out loud how they deal with lower sales velocities.
My initial question was tangential and more thinking out loud how they deal with lower sales velocities.
To the extent there is " lower sales velocities. " of which you have presented no evidence to back that claim, you would also have to present evidence that the lower sales velocities were directly caused by a transition from physical to digital sales.
I would find that data to be very interesting, and based on what I know about the industry I would also say that neither one of those claims can be supported by any data I am aware of
I would find that data to be very interesting, and based on what I know about the industry I would also say that neither one of those claims can be supported by any data I am aware of
> I’m asking how do you price things reasonably if they potentially last forever?
They can potentially last forever, but humans don't. Since Apple's stuff is associated to a personal account, I don't see an issue here, vinyls can also last for a life.
On the other hand, consumers have lost the right to lend, give or sell the stuff they buy. That's not priced either, and we see every possible move be done to make these operations user-hostile, if not forbidden.
They can potentially last forever, but humans don't. Since Apple's stuff is associated to a personal account, I don't see an issue here, vinyls can also last for a life.
On the other hand, consumers have lost the right to lend, give or sell the stuff they buy. That's not priced either, and we see every possible move be done to make these operations user-hostile, if not forbidden.
I don't know. I have many tapes at home.~15-25 years old. I almost never touch them, but when i do they seem to work fine. Maybe the quality is bad, but i have nothing to compare it to.
How do you price real estate when it lasts forever? (The land, not the buildings)
Of course there's an actual answer to this as well, the economic concept of a discount rate; things far in the future are worth less than they are in the present, by an amount depending on interest minus inflation.
Of course there's an actual answer to this as well, the economic concept of a discount rate; things far in the future are worth less than they are in the present, by an amount depending on interest minus inflation.
Not the main point of the case, but I am curious how his account was terminated. Apple does that much less often than Google does (you're not posting death threats in YouTube comments using your Apple account). I'm also curious how he purchased $25k of apps and videos in only two years.
Even if this is an extreme case, I hope that Apple (and other platforms) are forced to change their language and/or provide more guarantees of access.
Even if this is an extreme case, I hope that Apple (and other platforms) are forced to change their language and/or provide more guarantees of access.
> but I am curious how his account was terminated.
Most of the time the giants do not tell you what you done wrong. My son managed to get my Sony account banned for 2 months(from all online stuff including the PS Plus that I am I paid a year subscription), there is no way to appeal and the only thing Sony told me in the notification email is that it is about violence or sexual stuff , so fuck knows what t could be about , I know he shared some screenshots with weapons from a game - would be ironic to get flagged by game screenshots or it could be just malicious people reporting you (may idiotic kids are online playing Fortnite and are threatening each other with reports).
In my case i decided I will no longer buy any new product from Sony and I will probably jailbreak the console when I think the online features are no longer worth it.
Most of the time the giants do not tell you what you done wrong. My son managed to get my Sony account banned for 2 months(from all online stuff including the PS Plus that I am I paid a year subscription), there is no way to appeal and the only thing Sony told me in the notification email is that it is about violence or sexual stuff , so fuck knows what t could be about , I know he shared some screenshots with weapons from a game - would be ironic to get flagged by game screenshots or it could be just malicious people reporting you (may idiotic kids are online playing Fortnite and are threatening each other with reports).
In my case i decided I will no longer buy any new product from Sony and I will probably jailbreak the console when I think the online features are no longer worth it.
> In my case i decided I will no longer buy any new product from Sony and I will probably jailbreak the console when I think the online features are no longer worth it.
Same here, my daughter got a big Apple account banned by messing with the associated email address, lost access to my "purchases" indefinitely. So I abandoned Apple's platform, I think it was around the time of iPhone 5.
I bought only Android after that, bye bye Apple and your stealing ways, ten years later I haven't forgotten what you did or forgiven you. I bet during this interval you lost more than what you stole from me! During this time I bought at least 4 flagship phones and God knows how many apps from the competition.
Same here, my daughter got a big Apple account banned by messing with the associated email address, lost access to my "purchases" indefinitely. So I abandoned Apple's platform, I think it was around the time of iPhone 5.
I bought only Android after that, bye bye Apple and your stealing ways, ten years later I haven't forgotten what you did or forgiven you. I bet during this interval you lost more than what you stole from me! During this time I bought at least 4 flagship phones and God knows how many apps from the competition.
Wow, $25K and he did not have download access to a single bit. That's insane! I hope this goes to trial and sets a precedent. The word "buy" is extremely misleading when it comes to cloud content. Never buy anything that the manufacturer is allowed to later repossess or deny your access to!
They should just force all these vendors to relabel those buttons to "Rent" or equivalent.
IMO they should just forbid taking away access. You can't terminate the account. If someone does a chargeback, you can terminate access to what they charged back. You can forbid them to write any additional data in the future. You can decline to sell them anything more. You can sue them for any monies they owe you. But if you're providing property-like digital goods, you must give indefinite read-only access to those goods, even if the account is otherwise banned from interacting with your service.
This is how things should be and I really hope we arrive at this in the future.
I like to call this "ownership light" and it would remove unilateral unaccountable suspension decisions from the equation.
The service provider is not burdened beyond reason and there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content).
I like to call this "ownership light" and it would remove unilateral unaccountable suspension decisions from the equation.
The service provider is not burdened beyond reason and there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content).
> there is still a distinction made between this and "physical ownership" (e.g. no right to inherit / sell the content).
Are you saying this like it's a good thing?
Are you saying this like it's a good thing?
Yes, that is what I'm thinking.
I recently changed my mind on this and used to believe that digital goods should be treated identical to physical ones.
Fundamentally the nature of things make them different and we should recognize this when discussing what rights which party should get.
Whether the two facts I stated make sense is certainly up for debate, but I don't believe we can move forward insisting that rules imposed by the physicalness ( is this a word) are the same as rules imposed by human society.
The goal must be to find a set of rules that is fair to all participants and I'm certain this it is possible to do this.
I recently changed my mind on this and used to believe that digital goods should be treated identical to physical ones.
Fundamentally the nature of things make them different and we should recognize this when discussing what rights which party should get.
Whether the two facts I stated make sense is certainly up for debate, but I don't believe we can move forward insisting that rules imposed by the physicalness ( is this a word) are the same as rules imposed by human society.
The goal must be to find a set of rules that is fair to all participants and I'm certain this it is possible to do this.
If I buy a movie on a DVD, should I be allowed to sell it when I'm done with it? If so, what's the difference between that and selling a digital copy when I'm done with it from the copyright owner's perspective?
> They should just force all these vendors to relabel those buttons to "Rent" or equivalent.
Yeah. That will be a little less misleading. Also with an expiration date "Rent for 5 years". So people know what they are exactly paying for.
Yeah. That will be a little less misleading. Also with an expiration date "Rent for 5 years". So people know what they are exactly paying for.
Change it to “rent” or give the option to download. You can’t have a contract where the terms change at any time for any reason (apples account termination policy)
They already have a rent option, so Rent (As long as your account is in good standing) and Rent (for a few hours) would be even more confusing.
> They already have a rent option, so Rent (As long as your account is in good standing) and Rent (for a few hours) would be even more confusing.
Perhaps they should make a less confusing service if they do not want their customers to be confused.
Perhaps they should make a less confusing service if they do not want their customers to be confused.
Why? You can rent a car for a day or lease it for years.
I'm just saying the term rent is already used in the system.
Even employment contracts work this way in a lot of US states. "At Will" employees can be terminated instantly without notice.
Yeah, but employment termination only applies going forward. The employer can't retroactively take back all of your previous pay. Apple here is keeping his money and also keeping the things he purchased with it.
Then that's a positive change, and it will change the customers' perception when they "buy" something they don't own.
Then I expect to pay considerably less though.
I think Apple and Amazon (an Amazon lawsuit is linked inside the article) will argue that they are similar to video rental stores like Blockbuster back when it was in business. However, Blockbuster did have physical copies of movies available to purchase in the form of VHS, and DVDs so I would argue that Blockbuster calling itself a store was still alright even though it might have done more business in rentals.
I’m not how Apple and Amazon’s respective media rental businesses would rename themselves to remove the word “store” e.g. App Store to App Rental. I do agree that both companies, Google, and others mislead potential customers by labeling what is essentially conditional, long-term rentals / leases as ownership.
I’m not how Apple and Amazon’s respective media rental businesses would rename themselves to remove the word “store” e.g. App Store to App Rental. I do agree that both companies, Google, and others mislead potential customers by labeling what is essentially conditional, long-term rentals / leases as ownership.
Also, blockbuster rental terms were clearly defined. For example you knew for how long you had the movie.
In the case of apple you don't know, because apple might decide to terminate your account before you even had time to watch the movie.
In the case of apple you don't know, because apple might decide to terminate your account before you even had time to watch the movie.
Yeah, that's the hypothetical that should definitely be played up – "buying" a movie and Apple terminating your account 5 minutes later. Makes it exceedingly clear that this certainly isn't "buying" and calling it such is false advertising.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a potential race condition exists in their cloud architecture such that you could "buy" a movie after you were banned from watching it.
I think the long term outcome will be some sort of account "locking" where the account becomes purely passive
I think the main problem is that because the conditions of the rental are not known at the time that you make a purchase (accounts can be terminated at any time for any reason) you can’t call it rental or buying really.
It seems I was fooled. I’m pretty tech savvy, but I guess I am naïve, I though my movies—no, I counted on my movies—being available to me indefinitely.
They are just available to you more indefinitely than you thought.
Not a dupe, I think?
There are two distinct lawsuits. The previous submission is just about the case on Apple making content impossible to download. But this article also discusses the case where Apple terminated an account with $25k of purchases.
There are two distinct lawsuits. The previous submission is just about the case on Apple making content impossible to download. But this article also discusses the case where Apple terminated an account with $25k of purchases.
This article references two different suits, and the headline is about the second one, but at least at the time I posted this comment, the part nearly everyone was commenting on was the first suit, with the "no reasonable person" line, which is the same suit as in the previous article.
IMO it wouldn't matter if they'd used the word "Rent" or "Licence" instead: it would still be unreasonable. Account termination is entirely at Apple's discretion, meaning the term of your "rental" is not known when you actually pay for the content.
For most people the term will be "forever", so that is the expectation.
It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you lose access to as a result of that termination.
For most people the term will be "forever", so that is the expectation.
It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you lose access to as a result of that termination.
Seriously. It's well past time that Congress passes a law explicitly to that effect -- if you lose access to purchased content, whether because your account was terminated or the content was removed, you get 100% refunded. End of story. Any TOS to the contrary are invalid.
How much should that digital content cost then? Make a DVD once, never think about it again. To offer digital copy that loses no value over time and must be available forever seems like a bad deal from the publisher's side.
To offer a one time download code seems far more tenable.
To offer a one time download code seems far more tenable.
Then they should advertise it as a one time download or a limited time rental. I don't have an issue with that.
But they shouldn't advertise "store your purchased movies in the cloud for free" when they only do that as long as it is convenient for them.
But they shouldn't advertise "store your purchased movies in the cloud for free" when they only do that as long as it is convenient for them.
Then make it non-DRM downloadable content that will be playable forever at the discretion of the consumer, like music bought on iTunes, then. Or at least mention the period for when the licensing will be honored during “purchase” and stick to it.
Honestly I don’t understand anyone having any sympathy for publishers or Apple. They were the ones who chose to use the current method.
Honestly I don’t understand anyone having any sympathy for publishers or Apple. They were the ones who chose to use the current method.
There are lots of possible solutions:
- Explicitly advertise that you're buying access to the content for x years, not buying it outright
- Allow for non-DRM content download either as standard, or as a guaranteed backup option
- If a company goes bankrupt, bankruptcy proceedings ensure that users' content licenses are transferred to another provider at no charge, funded with liquidation proceeds -- with priority over contractors, lenders, investors, etc.
There are lots of solutions.
- Explicitly advertise that you're buying access to the content for x years, not buying it outright
- Allow for non-DRM content download either as standard, or as a guaranteed backup option
- If a company goes bankrupt, bankruptcy proceedings ensure that users' content licenses are transferred to another provider at no charge, funded with liquidation proceeds -- with priority over contractors, lenders, investors, etc.
There are lots of solutions.
Whether it explicitly advertises buying content for X years is hardly relevant in this case. The issue is that Apple claims the right to shut it down at any time. If they promised 5 years and shut down the account after a month, the same issue would come up.
I was addressing the parent's comment about making content available forever being uneconomical.
My original, root comment was already about the immediate issue with Apple.
My original, root comment was already about the immediate issue with Apple.
Right, but then they would only need to refund content purchased in the last 5 years.
Lots of similar replies. I meant if a DVD costs $25 and a digial download comes with a long-tail(forever per the comment I relied to) then how much should it cost? More I would imagine.
Sure they could advertise longer rental lengths, or clearly tie it to the business (which is probably buried in the ToS already). But if congress legislates digital purchases to be available forever with a 100% refund attached, how much should that cost? It seems wholly uneconomical from a provider side. We all work in IT, but in an enterprise situation, you know how quickly LTS is de-prioritized.
I would price a true forever digital licence in the $100's because you have to account for so many variables like storage(what country(s) can I store this movie in), bandwidth (what quality must I provide), and regions(where can I watch this).
I would love a world where I can stream whatever, whenever, forever after a purchase but someone has to manage that, and forever is an insane horizon. Even 100 years is crazy! WWI-ish to today!
And if they offered DRM free downloads, are you ok with it being one time? What if it was watermarked? Would you be willing to secure your copies? At some level a business will want to make money on their product and prevent piracy.
I dunno. I want cheap, widely available, drm free media too, but I understand why it hasn't come to be yet.
Sure they could advertise longer rental lengths, or clearly tie it to the business (which is probably buried in the ToS already). But if congress legislates digital purchases to be available forever with a 100% refund attached, how much should that cost? It seems wholly uneconomical from a provider side. We all work in IT, but in an enterprise situation, you know how quickly LTS is de-prioritized.
I would price a true forever digital licence in the $100's because you have to account for so many variables like storage(what country(s) can I store this movie in), bandwidth (what quality must I provide), and regions(where can I watch this).
I would love a world where I can stream whatever, whenever, forever after a purchase but someone has to manage that, and forever is an insane horizon. Even 100 years is crazy! WWI-ish to today!
And if they offered DRM free downloads, are you ok with it being one time? What if it was watermarked? Would you be willing to secure your copies? At some level a business will want to make money on their product and prevent piracy.
I dunno. I want cheap, widely available, drm free media too, but I understand why it hasn't come to be yet.
Having to run DRM servers in perpetuity lest you be financially ruined seems like an appropriate tradeoff and counterbalance to DRM.
If you really want such a high level of control, then it accordingly comes with a high level of responsibility.
If you really want such a high level of control, then it accordingly comes with a high level of responsibility.
There could be other ways to manage it, like specifying how long the rental would be valid for (I think iTunes started this way with movies), instead of alluding to the idea that you are buying it forever as part if a personal library.
If the download had no DRM, and I could freely copy it, I would have much more sympathy. Usually transfering to another machine is hard, or impossible.
Do files from itunes have drm on it these days? I thought waaay back in the beginning they did have it, but then at some point they went drm free. (At least fir music) At what point did they sworch back?
Music does not have DRM (which is great!), but everything else you can purchase does—books, audiobooks, movies, apps, etc.
Movies have DRM. Music doesn’t.
You don't have to keep offering it. You just have to not turn of DRM servers or offer the download without DRM in the first place.
Because the marginal cost of a digital file is too darn high?
Content gets removed from Netflix all the time, especially after they pivoted to their own production versus hosting content produced by others. How much should I get back?
A netflix subscription is access to content, not a purchase of content.
And crucially, from the consumer's perspective, this isn't unreasonable. Unless you watch only rarely, you probably aren't paying anything like the full market price of a permanent copy of each movie or TV show you watch on Netflix, just as in days gone by you paid much less when you rented a movie on tape from the video store instead of buying. You might rationally prefer to pay a smaller amount for library-style access to a large pool of content for a certain period rather than the full purchase price of every specific piece of content you watch, and in that case, the deal is in your interests as well as Netflix's. Now, if a supplier started charging around the same amount as a full purchase would have cost but still strongly restricted the associated use of the content, that would start to look abusive.
Indeed. And the model makes this very clear too. On Netflix there is a button 'watch', while on iTunes and many others, the button says 'buy', 'purcase' etc. One implies a transaction, the other implies using already accessible content.
Might be the reason for Apple Arcade...because the buying-but-not-owning-business model is EOL
I doubt it is EOL. There is demand for "owning", so there is a business-model there. It might be shrinking or changing, but at least for a niche, it will stay.
For example e-books. I try to buy as many from the authors (or their publishers) themselves. Surprising how often an author sells their book themselves. DRM-free, almost always cheaper. Owned-by-me. As opposed to e.g. my "kobo", which I cannot backup and download for that inevitable moment that Rakuten/Kobo decides to close my account, "pivot" or stop offering services.
For example e-books. I try to buy as many from the authors (or their publishers) themselves. Surprising how often an author sells their book themselves. DRM-free, almost always cheaper. Owned-by-me. As opposed to e.g. my "kobo", which I cannot backup and download for that inevitable moment that Rakuten/Kobo decides to close my account, "pivot" or stop offering services.
I’m reminded of a parody report noting Netflix was trialing a “browse only” plan, so you and your partner can argue endlessly about what to watch, but never have to make a choice.
[1] https://www.theonion.com/netflix-introduces-new-browse-endle...
[1] https://www.theonion.com/netflix-introduces-new-browse-endle...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Unfortunately, this would probably force them to treat purchase revenue as a liability on the accounting books.
Only if they use DRM. It’s not possible for me to lose access to the music I’ve purchased on iTunes, the games I’ve purchased on GoG, or the audiobooks I’ve purchased on libro.fm. (Except through my own fault, which shouldn’t apply.)
iTunes doesn't use DRM anymore? I haven't used it since I had a 1st gen ipod mini back in high school, but I remember only certain music was available without DRM and you used to have to pay extra for it.
When they dropped DRM, they raised the price a bit. I don’t remember them ever offering a choice, but I could be wrong—regardless, the slightly-more-expensive, DRM-Free songs are all that’s available today.
If you purchased music before the switch, that does still have DRM. (As an aside, you can get rid of it by setting up a VM with an old version of iTunes and Requiem.)
If you purchased music before the switch, that does still have DRM. (As an aside, you can get rid of it by setting up a VM with an old version of iTunes and Requiem.)
Well, question: suppose Steam ran out of money tomorrow. Do you think it would be acceptable for Valve to just delete all user accounts and games, if it saved them $100? Or do you think they have an obligation to customers to at least provide a single transfer of each game download to archive.org or someone, and give customers a magnet link for each game they own?
I very much doubt Valve has the required licensing to release the game they have on their store to any other platform (except for their own games). If Valve ever goes bankrupt and closes shop, it is likely that the users would lose access to their games.
That doesn't really pose any difficulties for the rule that you have to refund purchases when you terminate the user's access. Under this rule, Valve would incur a bunch of liabilities to its user base, which it would then mostly not pay because it's bankrupt.
They'd be pretty massive liabilities and would significantly eat into the recovery for other creditors, which could have effects on Valve's ability to issue debt, or might just mean that whenever Valve issues debt there's a clause making that debt senior to any future we-terminated-your-account liabilities.
They'd be pretty massive liabilities and would significantly eat into the recovery for other creditors, which could have effects on Valve's ability to issue debt, or might just mean that whenever Valve issues debt there's a clause making that debt senior to any future we-terminated-your-account liabilities.
> there's a clause making that debt senior to any future we-terminated-your-account liabilities
How does that work? Surely that’d have to be something agreed to by both the lender and the customers?
How does that work? Surely that’d have to be something agreed to by both the lender and the customers?
I don't know. All I know is that debts are commonly tiered in this way, and maybe there's a way to do it here.
Which employee is going to be responsible for doing all that, considering they just ran out of money and most definitely will not be getting a paycheck for executing this plan?
That's why this needs to be a law - to create an incentive where one would otherwise not exist.
I think the slightly longer version is that going bankrupt is not usually a discrete step in time and that planning and negotiating between creditors, debtors, and the government is going on. So if there is a law there is a government interest in customers being treated right before, for instance, big owners get a payout from a sale of assets.
If there are literally no assets there's very little that can be done though, you could threaten the owners with jail but what can they even do if there is no money? If there were a law it would almost necessitate something more like unemployment insurance where companies are forced to hold insurance to deal with this in a predictable way if they shut down or close a customers account.
Actually, unemployment insurance might be a pretty good analogy. If a company goes out of business and you get laid off as an employee you get unemployment mostly paid for out of money the company paid to an insurance policy. In this case instead of being triggered by unemployment it's triggered by loss of access. In the same way, if a company is closing a lot of accounts their insurance rates go up.
If there are literally no assets there's very little that can be done though, you could threaten the owners with jail but what can they even do if there is no money? If there were a law it would almost necessitate something more like unemployment insurance where companies are forced to hold insurance to deal with this in a predictable way if they shut down or close a customers account.
Actually, unemployment insurance might be a pretty good analogy. If a company goes out of business and you get laid off as an employee you get unemployment mostly paid for out of money the company paid to an insurance policy. In this case instead of being triggered by unemployment it's triggered by loss of access. In the same way, if a company is closing a lot of accounts their insurance rates go up.
I would imagine this not being the case if they can show that the customer downloaded a DRM free copy of the content at any point. After that it is the customer's problem to keep access to the downloaded copy.
That's why I uploaded all of my DRM free purchases to iCloud, that way I'll have access to it forever. /s
Oh well, they should have thought about that before diving into a market thinking that they shouldn't bear any responsibility for their actions towards consumers.
What's the problem with this ? I'm not familiar with accounting.
It means that all revenue could at some point trigger a refund, for example if they want to exit the media distribution business and shutdown the services. That would be an expensive thing to do.
I suspect any law would state it has an availability period before refunds are not eligible.
I suspect any law would state it has an availability period before refunds are not eligible.
That's only if they design the distribution system such that it relies on the existence of the servers. If I start up Age of Empires 2 (assume in a computer or older VM such that compatibility isn't an issue), I can start a multiplayer game through LAN without any issue. If I start up a game of Overwatch, I cannot play against somebody in the same room without connecting through Blizzard's servers.
It is perfectly reasonable for a company to be liable for refunds if they want to deliberately take products or features away from users. In order for a company to avoid this liability, they must provide a way for those features to still be available to users, even if the company no longer supports the product.
This is pretty easy and straightforward to legislate. A media company that provides distribution of individual works (like Steam or Apple, as opposed to subscription services like Netflix), must provide a method for users to easily and automatically back up all purchased content. A company that runs servers necessary to the use of a program (e.g. matchmaking servers for video games) must provide the server executable, in a form that can run on currently-available commodity hardware, and must allow the client to select a privately-owned software. Companies that don't meet these requirements would still hold full liability for refunds if they remove product features later on.
It is perfectly reasonable for a company to be liable for refunds if they want to deliberately take products or features away from users. In order for a company to avoid this liability, they must provide a way for those features to still be available to users, even if the company no longer supports the product.
This is pretty easy and straightforward to legislate. A media company that provides distribution of individual works (like Steam or Apple, as opposed to subscription services like Netflix), must provide a method for users to easily and automatically back up all purchased content. A company that runs servers necessary to the use of a program (e.g. matchmaking servers for video games) must provide the server executable, in a form that can run on currently-available commodity hardware, and must allow the client to select a privately-owned software. Companies that don't meet these requirements would still hold full liability for refunds if they remove product features later on.
Only if they decided to retain the technological means to revoke access to the items purchased.
Is that standard practice on physical products which have warranties? If not, then I do not see why it would be necessary here.
Warranties are for things that break on their own. If the manufacturer of a physical product broke into your house and smashed it with a sledgehammer, they'd absolutely be on the hook for what they did, warranty or no warranty.
I believe you have to put aside some portion of the cost of the item as a liability. So say you sold a $100 item that cost $70 and the average cost of providing warranty service per item is calculated to be $10. Then you would have to set aside $10 of the $100 as a liability.
Perhaps, but it's more likely that they'd figure out how to retain a read-only account - one with basic settings for email/password that could be changed, but everything else was static. No purchases, no email, no uploads, etc.
This does not seem like an enormous leap to make.
This does not seem like an enormous leap to make.
I know literally nothing about accounting, but does it really work that way? I figured you would just be able to count the portion of purchases you expect to be refunded as a liability, rather than all purchases.
The 100% return creates a liability to return the revenue to the buyer.
Refunds aren't sufficient, you are owed whatever the replacement cost is.
If the good is no longer available except for at 10x or 100x the price, you are owed that. If the good is no longer available at any price, but the person with the liability is capable of making it available, they should be required to do so (or negotiate a contract with you that buys out your rights, but you should be free to decline that or to set whatever price you want).
This is especially relevant in the digital realm where it's an especially effective tactic to undercharge to try and starve competitors, and then raise prices.
If the good is no longer available except for at 10x or 100x the price, you are owed that. If the good is no longer available at any price, but the person with the liability is capable of making it available, they should be required to do so (or negotiate a contract with you that buys out your rights, but you should be free to decline that or to set whatever price you want).
This is especially relevant in the digital realm where it's an especially effective tactic to undercharge to try and starve competitors, and then raise prices.
That's unreasonable, wouldn't be practical, and goes against precedent.
The analogy here is if you buy a vacuum cleaner from a store and it doesn't work because of a defect. You bring it back and get your money back.
The store isn't required to provide you with another working vacuum cleaner. If the vacuum cleaner is no longer manufactured, they're not required to find one in mint condition on eBay that's 10x or 100x the price.
If you got to consume the media you bought for months/years and you get a full refund, I'd say you have nothing to complain about.
The analogy here is if you buy a vacuum cleaner from a store and it doesn't work because of a defect. You bring it back and get your money back.
The store isn't required to provide you with another working vacuum cleaner. If the vacuum cleaner is no longer manufactured, they're not required to find one in mint condition on eBay that's 10x or 100x the price.
If you got to consume the media you bought for months/years and you get a full refund, I'd say you have nothing to complain about.
> and goes against precedent.
On the contrary, this is with the precedent, damages due to breach of contract, theft, destruction of property, etc are cost to replace not the original cost. And specific performance (i.e. requiring someone perform the action to fulfill the contract) is available if monetary damages aren't calculable (i.e. there is no replacement on the market).
On the contrary, this is with the precedent, damages due to breach of contract, theft, destruction of property, etc are cost to replace not the original cost. And specific performance (i.e. requiring someone perform the action to fulfill the contract) is available if monetary damages aren't calculable (i.e. there is no replacement on the market).
It’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”. That’s in addition to any separate clauses that disclaim any and all explicit warranty. I’ve never signed a contract without such a clause and would bet it’s already a part of all of these terms of service.
Yes... because warranties are optional guarantees of fitness being sold on top of the product. We aren't talking about a warranty on the product here, we are talking about the product itself, I have never seen a contract that says "oh, and we can steal the product back from you in exchange for monies actually received", unsurprisingly, outside of digital assets.
And of course that term is common because the default terms for damages can go beyond that (e.g. if replacement value rises).
And of course that term is common because the default terms for damages can go beyond that (e.g. if replacement value rises).
It’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”.
And it's standard for statutory consumer protection laws to override any contractual terms and sometimes even make it illegal for vendors to suggest or imply that restrictions on the consumer's legal rights exist, at least in jurisdictions where consumer protection laws have teeth. Otherwise, every vendor (the big guy) could just require every consumer (the little guy) to sign away all their theoretical consumer rights as part of the purchase contract, and the theoretical rights would be worthless in practice.
And it's standard for statutory consumer protection laws to override any contractual terms and sometimes even make it illegal for vendors to suggest or imply that restrictions on the consumer's legal rights exist, at least in jurisdictions where consumer protection laws have teeth. Otherwise, every vendor (the big guy) could just require every consumer (the little guy) to sign away all their theoretical consumer rights as part of the purchase contract, and the theoretical rights would be worthless in practice.
If you got to consume the media you bought for months/years and you get a full refund, I'd say you have nothing to complain about.
This is why concepts like opportunity cost and consequential loss exist. While your arguments here seem reasonable, it is also reasonable to argue that harm has still been caused to the consumer, if they originally had a choice of vendors to buy from, a bad one they initially chose has refunded (only) their original purchase price, but the current market price is significantly higher.
If the basic principle of awarding compensation for damages is to make someone whole to the extent that this is possible, then the consumer in that scenario does still have something to complain about. This seems particularly relevant with digital products, where copies are entirely fungible and if the consumer has lost access they previously enjoyed then this was the result of the vendor's decisions around the technology, either actively revoking the access or deleting the material somehow, or taking some action like switching off a DRM server that indirectly causes the same end result.
This is why concepts like opportunity cost and consequential loss exist. While your arguments here seem reasonable, it is also reasonable to argue that harm has still been caused to the consumer, if they originally had a choice of vendors to buy from, a bad one they initially chose has refunded (only) their original purchase price, but the current market price is significantly higher.
If the basic principle of awarding compensation for damages is to make someone whole to the extent that this is possible, then the consumer in that scenario does still have something to complain about. This seems particularly relevant with digital products, where copies are entirely fungible and if the consumer has lost access they previously enjoyed then this was the result of the vendor's decisions around the technology, either actively revoking the access or deleting the material somehow, or taking some action like switching off a DRM server that indirectly causes the same end result.
Comparing physical objects to digital one is absolutely ludicrous. It costs almost nothing to copy a digital work.
The store does not lock your access to your vacuum while it's in your home. This may happen in the future with cars for example. Imagine you driving and suddenly your car dies because the car company "banned" you and locked your car.
The store does not lock your access to your vacuum while it's in your home. This may happen in the future with cars for example. Imagine you driving and suddenly your car dies because the car company "banned" you and locked your car.
> This may happen in the future with cars for example. Imagine you driving and suddenly your car dies because the car company "banned" you and locked your car.
Something very similar has already been happening for years with cars.
Car dealerships and lease/loan companies install remote tracking and deactivation systems in vehicles they sell/lease, with the idea being that if you don't pay your loan/lease, well the car just won't run.
There's been a number of cases where this has been abused. For instance in Canada a dealership locked a car they no longer owned[1] because the owner refused to pay a removal fee for the device.
Tesla has been removing features from second-hand cars[2], which is definitely trending in that direction.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-man-fights-ba...
[2] https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/tesla-disablin...
Something very similar has already been happening for years with cars.
Car dealerships and lease/loan companies install remote tracking and deactivation systems in vehicles they sell/lease, with the idea being that if you don't pay your loan/lease, well the car just won't run.
There's been a number of cases where this has been abused. For instance in Canada a dealership locked a car they no longer owned[1] because the owner refused to pay a removal fee for the device.
Tesla has been removing features from second-hand cars[2], which is definitely trending in that direction.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-man-fights-ba...
[2] https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/tesla-disablin...
> and goes against precedent.
Your analogy works against this point. If you were to deprive me of my use of a vacuum cleaner, then a court would absolutely rule that you make me whole. Those damages could be 100x the original price if that valuation can be demonstrated.
The store is bound to the terms of the warranty contract, which usually comes with limitations or allows for discretion when deciding how they shall honor it. But that applies to defects, not deprivation.
Your analogy works against this point. If you were to deprive me of my use of a vacuum cleaner, then a court would absolutely rule that you make me whole. Those damages could be 100x the original price if that valuation can be demonstrated.
The store is bound to the terms of the warranty contract, which usually comes with limitations or allows for discretion when deciding how they shall honor it. But that applies to defects, not deprivation.
The bigger the asset, the more it approaches the parents suggestion.
If a rich person buys an expensive asset and it is defective, they're often owed for loss of use/revenue because they have the power to negotiate purchasing contracts that provide this. Us poors do not have this capability.
If a rich person buys an expensive asset and it is defective, they're often owed for loss of use/revenue because they have the power to negotiate purchasing contracts that provide this. Us poors do not have this capability.
As other already pointed out, this should only apply to DRM media. DRM-free should imply that the customer is responsible for it once the transfer is done.
I'd love for this to happen, not just for the amusement of seeing all the giant corporations suddenly jumping to DRM free distribution to save tons of money, and Tim Cook explaining for 5 minutes how innovative Apple was with reinventing their content distribution model.
I think Apple killed off DRM on music in the late 2000s and indeed, Steve Jobs was quite pleased with himself when announcing it.
(What's old is new again -- Epic is basically doing the same thing to Apple now. It all starts when an entrenched monopolist receives an open letter, apparently.)
(What's old is new again -- Epic is basically doing the same thing to Apple now. It all starts when an entrenched monopolist receives an open letter, apparently.)
The funny thing is, Apple had an iron grip on the music market because of DRM. If you wanted to license music for digital download, the music industry demanded DRM, and Apple had the only DRM consumers had any faith in. You couldn't use an alternative DRM scheme with iPods; FairPlay was Apple's proprietary technology and it was the only DRM iPods would recognize.
The music industry only caved on DRM specifically because they realized they had written Apple a blank check. Had Apple not had a long and storied history of trademark litigation from The Beatles' record label (also named Apple), they could have started directly signing artists themselves.
The difference between then and now with the Epic lawsuit is that iOS has no sideloading option. Going DRM-free meant you could sell music on iPods without paying Apple. For software, the closest equivalent would be webapps on iOS, but that usually entails rewriting significant parts of your app and losing access to certain functionality. You don't get push notifications, you can't access native UI so all your UI code has to be redeveloped to something worse, and so on.
The music industry only caved on DRM specifically because they realized they had written Apple a blank check. Had Apple not had a long and storied history of trademark litigation from The Beatles' record label (also named Apple), they could have started directly signing artists themselves.
The difference between then and now with the Epic lawsuit is that iOS has no sideloading option. Going DRM-free meant you could sell music on iPods without paying Apple. For software, the closest equivalent would be webapps on iOS, but that usually entails rewriting significant parts of your app and losing access to certain functionality. You don't get push notifications, you can't access native UI so all your UI code has to be redeveloped to something worse, and so on.
I would suggest as an alternative to a refund a way to download you content with reasonable notice(30-60 days) in open formats.
> It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you lose access to as a result of that termination.
I like that idea a lot. I would add that, at the very, very least, they should give you a personal link to download a snapshot of all of your data from their cloud at the time of termination: email, calendar, contacts, photos/videos, docs, et. al.
I like that idea a lot. I would add that, at the very, very least, they should give you a personal link to download a snapshot of all of your data from their cloud at the time of termination: email, calendar, contacts, photos/videos, docs, et. al.
The problem is more the licensed content such as movies and music. They likely can't provide it to you in a format sans DRM. So even having the option to download the file, will likely require the media to verify online to unlock at playtime.
I'd be in favor of the law having a clause like the "No Surrender of Others' Freedom" clause of the GPL. Basically saying "If you provide movies like this, then you must make them available without DRM. If you have other legal or contractual requirements that forbid you from making them available without DRM, then you can't make them available at all."
Moreover, DRM prevents copyright content from entering the public domain. In my personal opinion, anything that's not available without DRM shouldn't get copyright - otherwise it subverts the deal at the centre of copyright.
The way around this would be to have a way to lodge a DRM free copy, which would be released to the public domain when the copyright expires, or on abandonment (so people wouldn't be denied access if the company didn't keep their servers running).
Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore.
The way around this would be to have a way to lodge a DRM free copy, which would be released to the public domain when the copyright expires, or on abandonment (so people wouldn't be denied access if the company didn't keep their servers running).
Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore.
Absolutely agreed. I'm of the opinion that anything under DRM, and any closed-source software, should not be eligible for copyright. When a work enters the public domain, society is allowed to build upon that work. If extant copies of the work are not in a form that allows others to build upon, then that right is infringed.
any closed-source software, should not be eligible for copyright
This is how you get software companies running almost everything on their own servers, subscription-only, updates-mandatory, so no-one ever gets a copy of the work themselves and copyright is irrelevant. I think it is abundantly clear by now that this is not necessarily a beneficial direction for the industry to be moving, at least not from the point of view of purchaser/user rights and future-proofing.
This is how you get software companies running almost everything on their own servers, subscription-only, updates-mandatory, so no-one ever gets a copy of the work themselves and copyright is irrelevant. I think it is abundantly clear by now that this is not necessarily a beneficial direction for the industry to be moving, at least not from the point of view of purchaser/user rights and future-proofing.
So make that illegal too. Basically write the AGPL into the law.
OK, so now only foreign software companies are providing these services and you aren't even getting the tax revenues or employment. That doesn't seem like an improvement.
As long as we're pretending things that will never happen anyway, let's also pretend there's a Berne Convention 2.0 to cut out basically every suitable host country.
Alternatively, how about a law that no government-owned systems may directly or indirectly use any services where the source isn't available? That would be a big enough seed that the viral/transitive nature of the first law would probably spread to everything.
Alternatively, how about a law that no government-owned systems may directly or indirectly use any services where the source isn't available? That would be a big enough seed that the viral/transitive nature of the first law would probably spread to everything.
The thing is, everything I first described already happens. Software companies have been moving towards SAAS and online game servers and other ways of running key parts of the code only on their own systems for some time, and the initial motivation for that was often copy protection even if today there are other advantages from the developer's perspective.
I don't think DRM changes anything for the legal aspect of going public domain.
I imagine that copies that were illegal with copyright (with DRM stripped) become legal once it gets to public domain.
I imagine that copies that were illegal with copyright (with DRM stripped) become legal once it gets to public domain.
The problem comes in when unbreakable DRM is introduced, including DRM that depends on an external server to provide access to licensed content. If the copy protection remains uncrackable after the copyright term expires, or if the server it depends on is no longer available, it amounts to theft from the public domain, pure and simple.
Content producers should be forced to choose between legal protection for their copyrights and technical protection. They should never have been permitted to claim both.
Content producers should be forced to choose between legal protection for their copyrights and technical protection. They should never have been permitted to claim both.
One doesn't need DRM to shut down a server and keep the assets/ net code from seeing the light of day. Plenty of MMOs have shut down with years of people's lives down the drain. Even if you were right about how companies with DRM shouldn't obtain copyrights, I don't see how uncrackability of DRM would be a significant limiting factor when an off switch and forgotten source code is just as capable in doing the same. It wouldn't solve the fundamental issue of, to quote you, theft from the public domain.
That's a separate question (but equally worth addressing). The point here, though, is that copyright is an explicit bargain with the public domain, and DRM makes it a one-sided one.
>>Moreover, DRM prevents copyright content from entering the public domain. In my personal opinion, anything that's not available without DRM shouldn't get copyright - otherwise it subverts the deal at the centre of copyright.
Inasmuch as I am sympathetic to the argument, how would a government force DRMless software without attacking encryption itself or violating a company's 1st amendment rights to sell whatever digital products as it sees fit? DRM is protected speech so long as encryption or encryption schemes are protected speech (malware a la Sony's rootkit notwithstanding).
>>Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore.
Copyright isn't a natural right but neither is someone else's content or products. Without copyright, every smart person would keep their inventions as trade secrets with limited disclosures/demonstrations that, like Greek fire, will eventually be lost to the ages. While copyright terms can be abusive and long, that alone does not make the concept invalid.
Inasmuch as I am sympathetic to the argument, how would a government force DRMless software without attacking encryption itself or violating a company's 1st amendment rights to sell whatever digital products as it sees fit? DRM is protected speech so long as encryption or encryption schemes are protected speech (malware a la Sony's rootkit notwithstanding).
>>Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore.
Copyright isn't a natural right but neither is someone else's content or products. Without copyright, every smart person would keep their inventions as trade secrets with limited disclosures/demonstrations that, like Greek fire, will eventually be lost to the ages. While copyright terms can be abusive and long, that alone does not make the concept invalid.
The government doesn't necessarily have to take an offense stance at all. Just removing the legislative protection for DRM schemes would go as long way. You could make it a condition that companies that want to gain legal defense for their DRM'd content must register a DRM-free version with, for example, the Library of Congress.
I agree with removing DMCA protections for circumventing DRM instead of outlawing or creating legislative disincentives for DRM outright (that would be a can of worms). However, it still doesn't sound like a full solution. Registration of the sort you propose, if done correctly, could work for e-books or movies. But what does that kind of registration look like for server- or cloud-based content (e.g. MMOs, subscription-only software) or video games that constantly get constant updates and DLCs?
I can think of a number of possible solutions (update the DRM-free copy the LoC has as you push patches out, for example).
I think more interesting is the broader principle of withholding legal protection unless the company proactively provides a solution. Trying to mandate behavior by companies seems difficult to achieve politically, and leaves the government with the responsibility of enforcement. The enforcement/compliance work then scales based on the amount of creative material released with DRM. It seems unlikely that a government agency will keep up.
On the other hand, it costs the government nothing to withhold legal protection. Making it the company's responsibility to provide a DRM-free copy (or eventual activation keys, etc., details will vary) to a trusted government entity in order to opt-in to legal protection of their copyright scales 1-to-1. It also aligns the incentives of both sides of the copyright problem. Companies have the full protection of law during the period in which the copyright exists and the public benefits from works entering the public domain automatically. As an added bonus, the government has a central place to invest resources in archival and preservation of the huge swaths of our culture that we're currently in danger of losing. I'm very grateful for the Internet Archive but it is a shame that they have to operate based on volunteer donations. It would be great to have a means to take a means for the companies who created the content to fund is archival (via nominal fees for artifact registration).
I think more interesting is the broader principle of withholding legal protection unless the company proactively provides a solution. Trying to mandate behavior by companies seems difficult to achieve politically, and leaves the government with the responsibility of enforcement. The enforcement/compliance work then scales based on the amount of creative material released with DRM. It seems unlikely that a government agency will keep up.
On the other hand, it costs the government nothing to withhold legal protection. Making it the company's responsibility to provide a DRM-free copy (or eventual activation keys, etc., details will vary) to a trusted government entity in order to opt-in to legal protection of their copyright scales 1-to-1. It also aligns the incentives of both sides of the copyright problem. Companies have the full protection of law during the period in which the copyright exists and the public benefits from works entering the public domain automatically. As an added bonus, the government has a central place to invest resources in archival and preservation of the huge swaths of our culture that we're currently in danger of losing. I'm very grateful for the Internet Archive but it is a shame that they have to operate based on volunteer donations. It would be great to have a means to take a means for the companies who created the content to fund is archival (via nominal fees for artifact registration).
The moment legal protection is withheld on disagreeable terms is the moment that copyrights become a less popular vehicle for defending a holder's rights. Despite what you might you might think, that's not a good thing. Copyrights are positive incentives for disclosure (but not necessarily for continued availability) of information. It is in the interest of a government for one to publicly disclose information on the sciences and the useful arts. Preemptively neutering a holder's defense to his copyright doesn't disincentives DRM. On the contrary, it encourages stronger, broader trade secret protections as well as non-disclosure and exclusion agreements with regards to both the content and DRM. That would be a blow to libraries just as much as it would archival sites.
Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore.
On the other hand, the inability of small copyright holders to effectively enforce their theoretical rights is also unfair and totally out of whack, but in the other direction.
I am sympathetic to the idea that DRM shouldn't be able to lock people out of accessing works they have a legitimate right to access, and I agree that such abuse needs to be dealt with through updating the legal frameworks for copyright and consumer rights.
However, I think to credibly change the law as you suggest (so, essentially, a publisher can choose DRM or copyright but not both) you'd also have to introduce meaningful criminal penalties for possibly willful and certainly commercial copyright infringement and treat it akin to fraud or theft. Otherwise, why wouldn't the little guy who has a genuine concern about copying reducing the value of the work they are publishing forego copyright entirely and rely only on the DRM, with no rights even theoretically for society as a whole to ever benefit from that work?
On the other hand, the inability of small copyright holders to effectively enforce their theoretical rights is also unfair and totally out of whack, but in the other direction.
I am sympathetic to the idea that DRM shouldn't be able to lock people out of accessing works they have a legitimate right to access, and I agree that such abuse needs to be dealt with through updating the legal frameworks for copyright and consumer rights.
However, I think to credibly change the law as you suggest (so, essentially, a publisher can choose DRM or copyright but not both) you'd also have to introduce meaningful criminal penalties for possibly willful and certainly commercial copyright infringement and treat it akin to fraud or theft. Otherwise, why wouldn't the little guy who has a genuine concern about copying reducing the value of the work they are publishing forego copyright entirely and rely only on the DRM, with no rights even theoretically for society as a whole to ever benefit from that work?
Fairly certain all music sold through iTunes has been DRM-free since like 2010. Amazon too, I think.
(Movies, not so much.)
(Movies, not so much.)
Yeah, that was a happy accident of market forces. Apple had become the juggernaut of music sales and the industry was desperate to get out from under them. They started letting other licensees go DRM free and Apple negotiated it from them at a markup.
I think the reason we never saw a similar model for movies and TV shows is because Hollywood was terrified of what Apple had done to the music industry.
I think the reason we never saw a similar model for movies and TV shows is because Hollywood was terrified of what Apple had done to the music industry.
It's too bad because music proved that DRM doesn't make any difference for piracy.
Spotify and competitors are successful despite piracy.
Movies piracy is still just as big with DRM.
Spotify and competitors are successful despite piracy.
Movies piracy is still just as big with DRM.
The happy accidents of market forces are what make markets great!
I would add that, at the very, very least, they should give you a personal link to download a snapshot of all of your data from their cloud at the time of termination: email, calendar, contacts, photos/videos, docs, et. al.
As a point of interest, in the EU and UK, they probably would be legally required to do something like that for things like mail and calendars, because the GDPR says, roughly speaking, that they have an obligation to keep the data reasonably safe and an obligation to let the data subject have it in some useful format. I doubt those obligations would extend to other creative works you'd purchased, though, since among other things that would drive a coach and horses through international copyright agreements and several reasonable business models built on the resulting legal framework.
As a point of interest, in the EU and UK, they probably would be legally required to do something like that for things like mail and calendars, because the GDPR says, roughly speaking, that they have an obligation to keep the data reasonably safe and an obligation to let the data subject have it in some useful format. I doubt those obligations would extend to other creative works you'd purchased, though, since among other things that would drive a coach and horses through international copyright agreements and several reasonable business models built on the resulting legal framework.
Apple can just rent you their entire catalogue similar to Apple Arcade or Music, then nobody would say you own the entire selection, just like it’d be absurd to say you own Netflix forever.
In the Netflix case it’s be even more difficult to argue since Netflix doesn’t own the IP and the catalogue is ever shifting. I’m afraid the future is rental at least because the consumer is no longer technically prepared to own and manage their own digital catalogue.
In the Netflix case it’s be even more difficult to argue since Netflix doesn’t own the IP and the catalogue is ever shifting. I’m afraid the future is rental at least because the consumer is no longer technically prepared to own and manage their own digital catalogue.
I think this is easy to resolve. With Netflix, the terms are that you pay a fixed amount and you get one month's access to stream whatever they choose to offer at the time, repeat. If Netflix terminates your account, well, you lose out on less than a month of access, so they should refund one month.
It's very different if (a) you pay per individual item, (b) there's an explicit or implied agreement that you have access to that item indefinitely. Then if your account is terminated, you should be refunded the value of having access indefinitely, which is the original purchase price.
Now maybe you're saying Apple can go to a subscription service where it rents "access" to the library, but those are very different terms.
It's very different if (a) you pay per individual item, (b) there's an explicit or implied agreement that you have access to that item indefinitely. Then if your account is terminated, you should be refunded the value of having access indefinitely, which is the original purchase price.
Now maybe you're saying Apple can go to a subscription service where it rents "access" to the library, but those are very different terms.
[deleted]
>rents "access" to the library
and finally, big tech will have caught on to the business model of late 90s early 2000s porn sites
and finally, big tech will have caught on to the business model of late 90s early 2000s porn sites
Meanwhile, pirates sit on the sidelines and laugh
Could this lead to people intentionally violating terms to try to get their account terminated so that they can get money back for every in app purchase, etc, they've ever made?
Yes which is why this won't ever happen. It should just be illegal to wholly terminate an account. If someone is breaking ToS, ban them from doing the ToS breaking thing like posting or commenting. No reason to terminate the entire account.
This is, in general, Valve's approach with Steam users. A user cheats on servers using Valve Anti-Cheat? Banned from all of those servers, but not from the games themselves. A user spams heinous garbage in the forums? Banned from posting in the forums. I think one of the only things that will actually get an entire account disabled is charging back a purchase.
Good point. Though I suspect it would be a pretty small percentage of people doing that.
I’d be thrilled if they win and this sets a precedent for other markets, I.E Steam as well.
"Rent" or "Licence" is def not how they want to describe their service, like every platforms they want you to beleive that you own the content.
I feel like they should have to put the account in some "inactive" state where he can't get any new stuff but keeps access to all existing purchases.
Do we know why his account was terminated? I couldn’t find anything on that.
People don't own the things they buy. They don't have property rights today. Today, a mob or a single unaccountable low-level account reviewer may declare someone an "out law" and anyone may do anything they like to him as is the old germanic tradition.
Orwell believed euphemisation was the key element of said tradition. Food for thought, perhaps. Not everything needs to be turned up to 11 all the time, explicitly or not. Chill.
> a mob or a single unaccountable low-level account reviewer may declare someone an "out law"
I take it you prefer that power to be reserved for those with high status?
I take it you prefer that power to be reserved for those with high status?
That's a false dichotomy, but I'll offer this for an answer:
"Yes, it should be reserved for those with high status, and high status should be reserved for people who are chosen by and accountable to the people over whom they have power."
"Yes, it should be reserved for those with high status, and high status should be reserved for people who are chosen by and accountable to the people over whom they have power."
See, I strongly disagree. I believe that, whatever my status, I have the right to associate with whomever I please. Which means I can shun whomever I please. I can also talk with whomever I please, including about people I'm avoiding.
So you can have a 1st Amendment, or you can have your Designated Excommunicators, but you can't have both.
So you can have a 1st Amendment, or you can have your Designated Excommunicators, but you can't have both.
I only found this vague statement:
> Price says that Apple terminated his account when the company suspected him of breaching its terms and conditions, but due to the clause in question Apple did not have to confirm a breach occurred or give Price notice or explanation before shutting down his Apple ID. [0]
[0] https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro...
> Price says that Apple terminated his account when the company suspected him of breaching its terms and conditions, but due to the clause in question Apple did not have to confirm a breach occurred or give Price notice or explanation before shutting down his Apple ID. [0]
[0] https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro...
We need to revise all consumer protection laws. Way more than we did a few years ago.
I would start with, Mandatory Arbitration.
Let consumers take these companies, including credit card companies, to court. What is the limit for small claims---$25,000? Companies might treat customers different? I wouldn't mind doing away with Terms if Service all together. If a company can't act within our laws without a 10 page TOS, so be it. Or, maybe strict protections for small companies, and nill for large companies. Companies that can afford to investigate claims against them?
All my belly aching here won't do a thing though. These companies have bought our representatives.
I'm waiting for a day someone has a successful website, like Hacker News, where people could offer suggestions to their representatives directly.
I don't think I'll ever see that day because those in charge know these matters are above the intellect of most Americans, and most Americans would rather escape the inequities of real life, especially on line?
I just looked up that 2008 Consumer Protection Act.
This popped up?
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/03/811718978/supreme-court-casts...
I would start with, Mandatory Arbitration.
Let consumers take these companies, including credit card companies, to court. What is the limit for small claims---$25,000? Companies might treat customers different? I wouldn't mind doing away with Terms if Service all together. If a company can't act within our laws without a 10 page TOS, so be it. Or, maybe strict protections for small companies, and nill for large companies. Companies that can afford to investigate claims against them?
All my belly aching here won't do a thing though. These companies have bought our representatives.
I'm waiting for a day someone has a successful website, like Hacker News, where people could offer suggestions to their representatives directly.
I don't think I'll ever see that day because those in charge know these matters are above the intellect of most Americans, and most Americans would rather escape the inequities of real life, especially on line?
I just looked up that 2008 Consumer Protection Act.
This popped up?
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/03/811718978/supreme-court-casts...
It shouldn't matter. If you're banned from going to a particular physical store for whatever reason, wrongly or not, you still get to keep everything you've ever bought there. If a physical store goes out of business, you also get to keep everything you've ever bought there.
Point being, IRL stores don't retain any control over anything you buy.
Point being, IRL stores don't retain any control over anything you buy.
If I buy a semester at a private school, I still have to pay for the entire semester if I'm expelled (sometimes a smaller but still substantial early leave amount).
I know neither of our analogies mirror exactly is going on, but that's part of the point. Maybe this is a different class of "ownership". There seems to be many classes already close to what Apple wants.
I'm not sure who will win. I hope it's not Apple, but I've already agreed to worse agreements getting through high school and college.
I know neither of our analogies mirror exactly is going on, but that's part of the point. Maybe this is a different class of "ownership". There seems to be many classes already close to what Apple wants.
I'm not sure who will win. I hope it's not Apple, but I've already agreed to worse agreements getting through high school and college.
But schools are not advertising to the public that they are “buying” the class and no reasonable consumer who pays tuition believes a 1 time payment of tuition permits them to attend the class indefinitely.
On the other hand Apple purposefully advertises movies as “rentals” or “purchases” sure more sophisticated individuals know better (usually those in the tech industry savvy to the willful and deceptive marketing of the tech companies) but the average consumer understands they have purchased the ownership rights of the movie.
Continuing with a reasonable standard if you are suspended/expelled you are generally entitled to due process (certainly in public schools), on the other hand if you violate Apple TOS you may not have the same due process, but it is reasonable to assume they will not delete your data And purchases without the opportunity to retrieve the same. Otherwise it’s a license to steal, they could claim the bank accounts you have connected to Apple Pay are forfeited to Apple, they can publish your emails/photos to harass and embarrass you, etc...
On the other hand Apple purposefully advertises movies as “rentals” or “purchases” sure more sophisticated individuals know better (usually those in the tech industry savvy to the willful and deceptive marketing of the tech companies) but the average consumer understands they have purchased the ownership rights of the movie.
Continuing with a reasonable standard if you are suspended/expelled you are generally entitled to due process (certainly in public schools), on the other hand if you violate Apple TOS you may not have the same due process, but it is reasonable to assume they will not delete your data And purchases without the opportunity to retrieve the same. Otherwise it’s a license to steal, they could claim the bank accounts you have connected to Apple Pay are forfeited to Apple, they can publish your emails/photos to harass and embarrass you, etc...
> I bought a dorm room, yet I lose access.
For assets in the physical world, the provider can have legitimate reasons for not refunding you the lost access that you originally paid for, on the scale of a month or a semester, due to the difficulty of them finding a replacement buyer/renter of that asset for the remaining duration. Something "seasonal" like school enrolment is a perfect example of that.
For digital assets, though, the period that you wouldn't expect to be refunded for should be measured in nanoseconds.
The other huge difference of course is that people don't buy perpetual access to a dorm room, whereas they believe they do for digital goods. "Forever minus ten nanoseconds" is very similar to "forever", so the refund should be close to 100%.
For assets in the physical world, the provider can have legitimate reasons for not refunding you the lost access that you originally paid for, on the scale of a month or a semester, due to the difficulty of them finding a replacement buyer/renter of that asset for the remaining duration. Something "seasonal" like school enrolment is a perfect example of that.
For digital assets, though, the period that you wouldn't expect to be refunded for should be measured in nanoseconds.
The other huge difference of course is that people don't buy perpetual access to a dorm room, whereas they believe they do for digital goods. "Forever minus ten nanoseconds" is very similar to "forever", so the refund should be close to 100%.
If you are expelled from a school, the school is currently unable to rescind access to previous education they've provided you, although the analogy starts to fall apart since education and digital media are not directly comparable.
> Maybe this is a different class of "ownership".
Except IMO this class of "ownership" should cost substantially less because you get much less value.
Except IMO this class of "ownership" should cost substantially less because you get much less value.
I don’t think “forever” is a promise anyone can realistic/honestly make.
As others have pointed out, refunds aren’t realistic either, and the path can be abused.
A better solution is that you should be able to download your purchases when your account is terminated (or even when it’s active).
An active account should not be required to use your downloaded purchases.
As others have pointed out, refunds aren’t realistic either, and the path can be abused.
A better solution is that you should be able to download your purchases when your account is terminated (or even when it’s active).
An active account should not be required to use your downloaded purchases.
I support this. But I do have questions.
Hypothetically; what if Apple were to cease to exist? Or wanted to discontinue their streaming services? Assuming Apple were in such a position, their financial outlook would probably not be good. They would likely be financially unable to reimburse that many subscribers.
How would winding down such a service work?
Hypothetically; what if Apple were to cease to exist? Or wanted to discontinue their streaming services? Assuming Apple were in such a position, their financial outlook would probably not be good. They would likely be financially unable to reimburse that many subscribers.
How would winding down such a service work?
It would be Apple's (or the bankruptcy court's) responsibility to transfer the access to a competitor's service, in exchange for payment or liquidation proceeds.
In fact, I'd argue that this ought to be the norm -- that content providers be forced to purchase insurance or something precisely in case they go out of business, to ensure customers will have their content migrated to another service, and be refunded for the small proportion of content that isn't available anywhere else.
In fact, I'd argue that this ought to be the norm -- that content providers be forced to purchase insurance or something precisely in case they go out of business, to ensure customers will have their content migrated to another service, and be refunded for the small proportion of content that isn't available anywhere else.
The same way it works when a bankrupt company can't pay an invoice. You can sue a company if it doesn't hold its financial obligations, and get your money, and so can the customer, like in this case.
When a company goes bust, if you are owed money by that company, you put in claims to the estate, and the administrators handle those claims according to a well specified priority list. The customers being reimbursed is part of that process. However, I know that gift cards and store credit tend to be at the bottom of the list, so I wouldn't have high hopes for digital assets being reimbursed either.
When a company goes bust, if you are owed money by that company, you put in claims to the estate, and the administrators handle those claims according to a well specified priority list. The customers being reimbursed is part of that process. However, I know that gift cards and store credit tend to be at the bottom of the list, so I wouldn't have high hopes for digital assets being reimbursed either.
> It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you lose access to as a result of that termination.
Well, not quite that simple, since a lot of people would de facto also lose access to their hardware and all work which relies on this software-hardware-combination.
Well, not quite that simple, since a lot of people would de facto also lose access to their hardware and all work which relies on this software-hardware-combination.
Sounds simple to me. Would suck to be apple though.
Likely all that would do is cause them to stop letting people buy content and push everyone over to subscription services -
Beyond that, there are problems there. What’s stopping me from getting all the latest games on iOS, latest movies as they come out then after a few years spend some time purposely breaking TOS so I can get it all refunded.
Beyond that, there are problems there. What’s stopping me from getting all the latest games on iOS, latest movies as they come out then after a few years spend some time purposely breaking TOS so I can get it all refunded.
Why is this a problem? If they take access of things you’ve bought, they should have to give you’re money back. Any breaking of the TOS in the future shouldn’t change that whether or not you’re purposefully trying to break them.
Because the value of those thing depreciate over time and therefore a full refund doesn’t accurately reflect current value.
A movie is more valuable directly after release, same is true for games. Additionally a movie/game is more valuable to those who have not yet seen/played them.
A movie is more valuable directly after release, same is true for games. Additionally a movie/game is more valuable to those who have not yet seen/played them.
Imagine you bought a bunch of physical books from Barnes and Noble, and then later did something to get yourself banned from all of their stores for life. (If it matters, assume that what you did was bad and that the ban was totally justifiable.) Would it be okay if they broke into your house and glued together the pages of all the books they ever bought, or would you sue them for compensation for doing that?
There's no reason Apple has to cut off access to your content even if they ban the rest of your account.
They could just set a flag on your account to "consume only" or something. Your account would be banned from "interaction" or further purchases, but you wouldn't lose your content.
They could just set a flag on your account to "consume only" or something. Your account would be banned from "interaction" or further purchases, but you wouldn't lose your content.
This would totally make sense to me - complete refund though doesn’t pass a sniff test
Complete refund (or rather whatever it takes to make the customer whole) is what is reasonable for for cases like this where the provider cuts off access. If they have a problem with that, they can implement other solutions that do not cut off access.
Or at least downgrade your "purchases" to "rental" price.
Sure a rental price determined by what the value of renting was according to the customer. Which, seeing as they opted to purchase, might reasonably be zero.
I hate to be so cynical, but here's exactly how this is going to play out, or I'll eat my hat:
1. Apple and Amazon will add language to their Terms and Conditions stating that regardless of the phrasing on their websites and apps, access to the media that customers purchase will be revoked if their account is terminated. And since it's in the agreement, it's binding: in general, you can't sue to get out of a contract just because you discover you don't like the terms later on. (Whether or not you actually read it before agreeing to it.)
2. Apple and the class action attorneys will settle this out of court. Apple will pay the attorney fees and reimburse the lead class member for the value of the media he "purchased". Everyone else who joined the class action as a member will get a $5 credit to their Apple account.
1. Apple and Amazon will add language to their Terms and Conditions stating that regardless of the phrasing on their websites and apps, access to the media that customers purchase will be revoked if their account is terminated. And since it's in the agreement, it's binding: in general, you can't sue to get out of a contract just because you discover you don't like the terms later on. (Whether or not you actually read it before agreeing to it.)
2. Apple and the class action attorneys will settle this out of court. Apple will pay the attorney fees and reimburse the lead class member for the value of the media he "purchased". Everyone else who joined the class action as a member will get a $5 credit to their Apple account.
Well then Apple will win in the US but not in the EU when they get sued there. In the EU you cannot bind someone to have less rights by hiding it somewhere in an EULA. If the button says Buy then legally you buy no matter what any contract says in small letters somewhere.
> And since it's in the agreement, it's binding
Not where I live. You can’t sign away rights given to you by law.
Not where I live. You can’t sign away rights given to you by law.
In an ideal world, the FTC and attorneys general around the US would hold Apple and Amazon accountable for screwing over consumers this blatantly if they did this.
I'm afraid you might be right about 2, but wrt 1 I think you can absolutely sue your way out of a contract if it was made after blatantly false advertising, no?
That’s correct. Am a lawyer, not giving legal advice.
A very common term in contracts is what is called a merger clause, and what it says essentially is that the contract forms the entire agreement of the parties, and that any oral representations not contained in the contract are irrelevant and to be completely disregarded. But there are courts that hold that a merger clause is not absolute and has its limits.
Make no mistake, contracts and their waivers are powerful. However, there are lots of court rulings where the courts have held that you can’t say X explicitly and have the contract say Y. In those situations, the courts will often enforce the X promise.
But then you get into a practical issue here. If you were an effected individual, you’re going to have to hire a lawyer to make that argument, and even with $25,000 on the line, that’s probably not a situation where the math works out.
A very common term in contracts is what is called a merger clause, and what it says essentially is that the contract forms the entire agreement of the parties, and that any oral representations not contained in the contract are irrelevant and to be completely disregarded. But there are courts that hold that a merger clause is not absolute and has its limits.
Make no mistake, contracts and their waivers are powerful. However, there are lots of court rulings where the courts have held that you can’t say X explicitly and have the contract say Y. In those situations, the courts will often enforce the X promise.
But then you get into a practical issue here. If you were an effected individual, you’re going to have to hire a lawyer to make that argument, and even with $25,000 on the line, that’s probably not a situation where the math works out.
A very common term in contracts is what is called a merger clause, and what it says essentially is that the contract forms the entire agreement of the parties, and that any oral representations not contained in the contract are irrelevant and to be completely disregarded. But there are courts that hold that a merger clause is not absolute and has its limits.
There are also places, like here in the UK, where statutory consumer rights law explicitly says that trying to hide behind those clauses doesn't stand up. You can't have a salesperson answer a consumer's questions about a product, and then when the consumer finds the product doesn't match the information they were given after buying it, argue that your Ts & Cs say anything the salesperson said before the purchase has no weight. Moreover, if you make a habit of trying, you're likely to attract not just action by the consumer themselves but also the attention of regulators who may be considerably more powerful than any individual consumer.
There are also places, like here in the UK, where statutory consumer rights law explicitly says that trying to hide behind those clauses doesn't stand up. You can't have a salesperson answer a consumer's questions about a product, and then when the consumer finds the product doesn't match the information they were given after buying it, argue that your Ts & Cs say anything the salesperson said before the purchase has no weight. Moreover, if you make a habit of trying, you're likely to attract not just action by the consumer themselves but also the attention of regulators who may be considerably more powerful than any individual consumer.
That's what class actions are for. The lawyer and the class representative get paid for their work to pursue the case.
Well, that's what the court case is about. I would certainly _like_ for the result of the case to be either Apple (Amazon, et al) stops using the word "Buy" in their apps, or better yet but even more unlikely, for the companies to start providing media as DRM-free downloads.
But like I said: the cynic in me says neither is going to happen.
But like I said: the cynic in me says neither is going to happen.
There is zero chance of DRM free downloads. Literally zero.
In which context? Services like Qobuz and Bandcamp support DRM-free downloads for your purchases so it is definitely possible.
IMHO chances for DRM-free downloads from Apple are very very slim. But not zero.
IMHO chances for DRM-free downloads from Apple are very very slim. But not zero.
> In which context?
In the context of "as a direct consequence of this lawsuit." Which, y'know, is pretty obvious from the parent comment it's a reply to?
Given downloads are possible even with DRM, that isn't even raised in the suit itself. The lawsuit hinges on the loss of availability of further streaming of the titles.
There is literally zero chance.
In the context of "as a direct consequence of this lawsuit." Which, y'know, is pretty obvious from the parent comment it's a reply to?
Given downloads are possible even with DRM, that isn't even raised in the suit itself. The lawsuit hinges on the loss of availability of further streaming of the titles.
There is literally zero chance.
To be fair, it did happen with music. I think DRM-free movies are unlikely to happen, but I wouldn't put the odds at zero.
You can buy movies on Vimeo 100% DRM free. It’s the only place I buy them.
In general, contracts can say literally whatever they want, and it doesn't mean they will stand up in court. If the court agrees that Apple selling $25k worth of stuff and denying access to it isn't "fair", then it isn't fair, end of story, regardless of what the contract says. The court might of course disagree, but you can't be certain until the case happens.
I do however believe that Apple will just settle this out of court, specifically to avoid such a ruling.
I do however believe that Apple will just settle this out of court, specifically to avoid such a ruling.
[deleted]
I think the courts are going to look for legality instead of fairness.
A reasonably degree of fairness is a requirement to be legal, otherwise the contract is deemed "unconscionable" and void.
Plus, this would a contract of adhesion—and courts hate contracts of adhesion and try to interpret them in favor of the consumer as far as possible.
I mean, yes, ultimately, but a contract that's aiming to be deceptive or one that imposes extremely punitive measures isn't going to be legal. You could write a contract that says that you can at any point terminate the contract and the other side has to buy you a latest Lamborghini. Like, there's nothing illegal about that in itself, but if the paragraph about the Lamborghini is just mentioned once on page 178 of the contract and not advertised anywhere, almost certainly any court will find it null and void, because people who have their contracts terminated usually don't have to buy people cars. Not illegal but unfair, which makes it deceptive which makes it illegal.
Your example would likely be unenforceable because contract terms must provide _consideration_ for both parties, or an element of fairness in the real assets being exchanged. Requiring one party to purchase a Lamborghini at the sole discretion of the other provides no consideration for the former.
An example of consideration in a penalty clause like this is AT&T's failed acquisition of T-Mobile US, where the contract forced AT&T to pay $3 billion and give up wireless spectrum when they abandoned the deal. In this case, the consideration was T-Mobile's time and money spent entering the deal in the first place vs. the penalty to AT&T.
It's also worth noting that "unfair" and "deceptive" are not synonymous in their legal definitions. An unfair practice involves terms that are not beneficial to one party and are unreasonable to avoid, while a deceptive practice is one that misleads the party into accepting unreasonable terms.
An example of consideration in a penalty clause like this is AT&T's failed acquisition of T-Mobile US, where the contract forced AT&T to pay $3 billion and give up wireless spectrum when they abandoned the deal. In this case, the consideration was T-Mobile's time and money spent entering the deal in the first place vs. the penalty to AT&T.
It's also worth noting that "unfair" and "deceptive" are not synonymous in their legal definitions. An unfair practice involves terms that are not beneficial to one party and are unreasonable to avoid, while a deceptive practice is one that misleads the party into accepting unreasonable terms.
Both - because there are laws against unfair contracts, especially when the unfair portion is only explained to the less advantaged party (the customer) in hidden tiny text.
I'm not sure what you mean by "end of story," apple can tie this up in appeals for years
Presumably the person and more importantly the lawyer who have decided that it is worth suing Apple over just 25k worth of damages have the wherewithal to take this all the way to the supreme court. Incentives in class action suits work weirdly.
You are almost certainly correct. It is not right or fair but it is probably legally defensible.
In the US, without legislation we rely on the contracts we sign. When we sign contracts with trillion dollar companies we don’t get to negotiate.
(I think this issue is related to right to repair, which is continuing to gain steam and might be a good effort to join forces with.)
In the US, without legislation we rely on the contracts we sign. When we sign contracts with trillion dollar companies we don’t get to negotiate.
(I think this issue is related to right to repair, which is continuing to gain steam and might be a good effort to join forces with.)
That's why we have laws about "contracts of adhesion" that limit the one-sided news of contracts. The law has a general protection against "unconscionable" contracts, to be decided by judge or jury.
Click wrapped Terms of Service like that need to be ruled as Unenforceable Unconscionable contracts as they are clearly soo one sided they can not be seen by any reasonable person to be enforceable
> class-action lawsuits over the meaning of the words “rent” and “buy.”
Ohhhhh this is great news! This has been a personal soap box of mine for years and years.
I really hope that the outcome will be that going forward at least, these words won't be used lightly anymore for risk of false advertising lawsuits. That should take care of a bunch of the "just rent it" business models that on second thought aren't really what the customer wanted at all. Well, I may be wrong about it. Maybe the world really doesn't care. In which case, at least language will be re-joined with reality in this case.
Edit: and at the risk of starting a fire here, this might also call into question some practices by the likes of Tesla and John Deere
Ohhhhh this is great news! This has been a personal soap box of mine for years and years.
I really hope that the outcome will be that going forward at least, these words won't be used lightly anymore for risk of false advertising lawsuits. That should take care of a bunch of the "just rent it" business models that on second thought aren't really what the customer wanted at all. Well, I may be wrong about it. Maybe the world really doesn't care. In which case, at least language will be re-joined with reality in this case.
Edit: and at the risk of starting a fire here, this might also call into question some practices by the likes of Tesla and John Deere
this is also something that im sure many friends of mine are tired of me talking about. "buy/purchase it now!" buttons are far more effective marketing-wise than "license it now!", which is one of the reasons why these companies are going to hang on with all the claws they've got.
Couldn't companies just put "Licence to watch..." in small print above the name of the movie/item and then still say "Buy now!" on the button, because you are buying the licence?
In some countries, absolutely.
In countries with consumer law, no. For example, where I live (Australia), it's absolutely unambiguously illegal to mislead the consumer. It's pretty obvious to everyone that putting "BUY!" in 72pt font and then a tiny "...a limited-time license" somewhere else on the page is misleading, as the word humans use for that is "rent", and therefore it would be false advertising.
In countries with consumer law, no. For example, where I live (Australia), it's absolutely unambiguously illegal to mislead the consumer. It's pretty obvious to everyone that putting "BUY!" in 72pt font and then a tiny "...a limited-time license" somewhere else on the page is misleading, as the word humans use for that is "rent", and therefore it would be false advertising.
I remember when I worked for Disney and they had some "lifetime" products, like "Leave a Legacy" (i.e., personalize a brick or small plaque in Epcot). If you read the fine print, they were only obligated to preserve your "legacy" for 20 years.
In fact the plaques were taken down after 20 years, but eventually reinstalled somewhere else:
https://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2021/02/09/leave-a-lega....
The TOS for these media “purchases” would be more honest if they had a time limit, e.g.: 10 years. You are “purchasing” a 10 year license.
In fact the plaques were taken down after 20 years, but eventually reinstalled somewhere else:
https://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2021/02/09/leave-a-lega....
The TOS for these media “purchases” would be more honest if they had a time limit, e.g.: 10 years. You are “purchasing” a 10 year license.
So a service that provide and sync your content, and also allow you to buy the content, will work ? ( I.e can Dropbox be distributor ? )
Apple could have avoided this issue entirely by allowing users to download the content without any DRM to a storage provider of their choice (ie, Dropbox, or local storage).
Unfortunately, I don’t think this is Apple’s choice. I think the rights holders get to dictate whether people can download the things or not.
Apple is big enough that if they told the MPAA "unless you let us distribute your movies DRM-free, we're not selling them to consumers", the MPAA would probably budge.
> Apple is big enough that if they told the MPAA "unless you let us distribute your movies DRM-free, we're not selling them to consumers", the MPAA would probably budge
I think it's the opposite. There's no chance at all that they'd do that because Apple would only be hurting themselves (and likely directly destroying Apple TV in some way) and the existing industry assumptions about DRM and privacy are entrenched, if not core.
We are a long ways away from when you played ball with iTunes or you didn't play digital music ball at all.
They would also likely have legal and PR pressure to exert against such a move. Regardless of whether Apple is or isn't a monopoly, they definitely don't want a billion dollar industry going after them in that angle right now.
I think it's the opposite. There's no chance at all that they'd do that because Apple would only be hurting themselves (and likely directly destroying Apple TV in some way) and the existing industry assumptions about DRM and privacy are entrenched, if not core.
We are a long ways away from when you played ball with iTunes or you didn't play digital music ball at all.
They would also likely have legal and PR pressure to exert against such a move. Regardless of whether Apple is or isn't a monopoly, they definitely don't want a billion dollar industry going after them in that angle right now.
Apple is strong enough to offer iTunes music without DRM, so I'm not sure why you're letting them off the hook here. They could do it, they just choose not to.
This is not even an option, since it will just make it easier to share files illegally and defeat the whole purpose of having an online movie store.
I disagree. Piracy was and still is very much a service problem. Just because people would have access to DRM-free movies does not mean they would automatically fire up bittorrent and start trading torrent files with their friends. That's still far too inconvenient.
I have lots of DRM-free games on GOG for instance. So do people I know. We've never had a single thought about pirating these. We're grown ups, we don't have time for that kind of thing.
I have lots of DRM-free games on GOG for instance. So do people I know. We've never had a single thought about pirating these. We're grown ups, we don't have time for that kind of thing.
it was already easy to obtain that very song or movie illegally.
Allowing a download doesn't _cause_ more piracy - it just makes the user have more power and control over their content they purchased.
Allowing a download doesn't _cause_ more piracy - it just makes the user have more power and control over their content they purchased.
This line of reasoning is why we have invasive drm that doesn’t work. It’s just another case of drm only hurting legitimate customers and not stopping piracy even in the slightest.
I understood this thing long time ago and removed my credit card from my account to resist tempation of buying stuff. I briefly added it back to purchase an app or two I really couldn’t do without. As far as media goes I have none on my Iphone.
Does anyone why they terminated his account?
Generally speaking, the corporation can terminate your count for secret reasons, including violating any term of any service they offer, such as storing something that looks like offensive content.
I think the right remedy is returning the money for "owned" items should they terminate. The problem here is the decision to terminate the contract resulted in direct loss of property (or utility if you really believe buy should mean rent) without any compensation.
Companies want people to be happy in a post-ownership society, Apple and Amazon are part of that
I hope more people start resisting this narrative that all or our property and in essences our lives should be leased / rented...
I hope more people start resisting this narrative that all or our property and in essences our lives should be leased / rented...
I'm okay if the terms of the rental or subscription are clearly defined. For example, I have no problem subscribing to Netflix and I expect to lose access to its library if I stop paying.
What is not okay is buying a perpetual license and lose access to it because our big tech overlord decided someone shouldn't and go away with the money. At least locking the account and forbidding access to buying more content would be a fair middle ground IMO.
What is not okay is buying a perpetual license and lose access to it because our big tech overlord decided someone shouldn't and go away with the money. At least locking the account and forbidding access to buying more content would be a fair middle ground IMO.
I think having the option to rent or subscribe is fine and it might actually be of benefit to some people. However, there is a problem when the option to own a product disappears because a rental/subscription model is more profitable, which we're seeing more and more. It's a pretty strong example of corporate interests not lining up with human/societal interests.
Netflix/Spotify etc is not really part of a post ownership society, not the in the way it is envisioned by people that promote such thing
Post Ownership society is an expansion of the Planned Obsolescence model, where planned obsolescence still observed the right of ownership which most often becomes the issue as people inherently believe it is unfair / unethical for a company to planned for their product to fail at a certain time.
Post Ownership society wants to do away with the very concept of ownership, this way planned obsolescence, things like requiring a person to rebuy all of the their songs if they forget their password, or if the company chooses it it time for you to buy them again (i.e a tos violation made up by the company) there is not ethical issue as you never owned it anyway
Post Ownership society is an expansion of the Planned Obsolescence model, where planned obsolescence still observed the right of ownership which most often becomes the issue as people inherently believe it is unfair / unethical for a company to planned for their product to fail at a certain time.
Post Ownership society wants to do away with the very concept of ownership, this way planned obsolescence, things like requiring a person to rebuy all of the their songs if they forget their password, or if the company chooses it it time for you to buy them again (i.e a tos violation made up by the company) there is not ethical issue as you never owned it anyway
I don't know whether Apple/Google/Facebook-Oculus/Microsoft/Sony, etc. already noticed (most likely not), but I already stopped buying anything from them, for exactly the reason that they might terminate my account without even telling me why, and without a possibility to object or even talk to a human being.
In an ideal world, everybody would do so, and the problem would go away very quickly.
In an ideal world, everybody would do so, and the problem would go away very quickly.
Foolish consumers and their primitive notions of “ownership”.
I feel its fair to give content providers a few options, but they must be forced into it by our government by choosing one of:
1. Provide an unencumbered, fungible export of the content purchased, either at the time of the customer's choosing or once upon account termination (for any reason whatsoever).
2. Provide a full refund of purchased content at the time of content-provider initiated account termination (for any reason whatsoever).
3. Replace the language on these types of purchases with the word "Rent", with an associated rental timeframe of exactly these words: "Indefinitely, until {ContentProvider} permanently revokes your access with no warning, reason, or recourse."
"That's a lot of words to fit on a one-click checkout button" -> Yeah, that's the problem. These companies have spent years lying to their customers about digital content availability, driving growth and dominance by hiding the truth and making it easy. All of that text needs to be upfront, right where the customer sees it; not hidden behind a popup dialog with a cute little question mark next to it.
"That text is kinda scary, and doesn't properly represent the average consumer's experience" -> Well, that's weird, because that's almost exactly how most of these providers word the terms of these purchases in their terms of service. You know, those documents no one reads.
The fact that content providers can, at a moment's notice, revoke anyone's access to potentially thousands of dollars of purchased content, for any reason, with no recourse, is absolutely insane. Its one of the biggest mockeries of our digital age. It should never have been allowed; its a pattern that only gained market traction because no average, reasonable, typical customer realizes or considers that these service providers can take away their content.
To be clear: There is a ton of digital content which needs to be classified under this banner; its not just movies.
* Movies & TV (iTunes, Amazon, Google Play).
* Books (iTunes, Amazon, Google Play). Some of these providers are nearly compliant, offering decently accessible exports in oftentimes DRM-encumbered formats. DRM has to go to be compliant with (1); if that's not an option, well, there are other ways.
* Music (iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Bandcamp). Almost everyone here is already compliant thanks to MP3/AAC/FLAC/etc exports. Awesome!
* App Store Apps & In-App Purchases (Apple, Google). Attaining compliance with (1) here is almost impossible (though a point-in-time, downloadable and independently installable application package may work! the gall to consider offering that!)
* Digital Video Games (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic, Google Stadia, Amazon Luna). At least some of these providers are so close; just strip the DRM and you can be compliant with (1). I mean jeeze, offering a refund would suck wouldn't it; wouldn't it just be better to be friendly to your past customers?
* Video Game Digital Content (Epic/Fortnite, EA/Apex Legends, Activision/Call of Duty, etc). Many of these games sell in-game cosmetic and/or gameplay-altering items; some of them sell in-game lottery cards that will give you these items. These games are actually the worst offenders of the whole list, because they all run anti-cheat systems that are horribly inaccurate in-terms of false-negatives and false-positives. People just get banned, for literally no reason except "they got reported a lot and were running some RGB software for their keyboard" every single day. Everyone banned by these systems is marked a dirty cheater; they'll ignore your support requests, and sometimes even hardware-id your computer and share those hardware-id lists with other game companies. Compliance with (1) is impossible. They need to offer refunds or be honest about what you're buying; this may tangentially add a direct profit incentive to building good, accurate anti-cheat, which is something nearly none of them care about.
1. Provide an unencumbered, fungible export of the content purchased, either at the time of the customer's choosing or once upon account termination (for any reason whatsoever).
2. Provide a full refund of purchased content at the time of content-provider initiated account termination (for any reason whatsoever).
3. Replace the language on these types of purchases with the word "Rent", with an associated rental timeframe of exactly these words: "Indefinitely, until {ContentProvider} permanently revokes your access with no warning, reason, or recourse."
"That's a lot of words to fit on a one-click checkout button" -> Yeah, that's the problem. These companies have spent years lying to their customers about digital content availability, driving growth and dominance by hiding the truth and making it easy. All of that text needs to be upfront, right where the customer sees it; not hidden behind a popup dialog with a cute little question mark next to it.
"That text is kinda scary, and doesn't properly represent the average consumer's experience" -> Well, that's weird, because that's almost exactly how most of these providers word the terms of these purchases in their terms of service. You know, those documents no one reads.
The fact that content providers can, at a moment's notice, revoke anyone's access to potentially thousands of dollars of purchased content, for any reason, with no recourse, is absolutely insane. Its one of the biggest mockeries of our digital age. It should never have been allowed; its a pattern that only gained market traction because no average, reasonable, typical customer realizes or considers that these service providers can take away their content.
To be clear: There is a ton of digital content which needs to be classified under this banner; its not just movies.
* Movies & TV (iTunes, Amazon, Google Play).
* Books (iTunes, Amazon, Google Play). Some of these providers are nearly compliant, offering decently accessible exports in oftentimes DRM-encumbered formats. DRM has to go to be compliant with (1); if that's not an option, well, there are other ways.
* Music (iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Bandcamp). Almost everyone here is already compliant thanks to MP3/AAC/FLAC/etc exports. Awesome!
* App Store Apps & In-App Purchases (Apple, Google). Attaining compliance with (1) here is almost impossible (though a point-in-time, downloadable and independently installable application package may work! the gall to consider offering that!)
* Digital Video Games (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic, Google Stadia, Amazon Luna). At least some of these providers are so close; just strip the DRM and you can be compliant with (1). I mean jeeze, offering a refund would suck wouldn't it; wouldn't it just be better to be friendly to your past customers?
* Video Game Digital Content (Epic/Fortnite, EA/Apex Legends, Activision/Call of Duty, etc). Many of these games sell in-game cosmetic and/or gameplay-altering items; some of them sell in-game lottery cards that will give you these items. These games are actually the worst offenders of the whole list, because they all run anti-cheat systems that are horribly inaccurate in-terms of false-negatives and false-positives. People just get banned, for literally no reason except "they got reported a lot and were running some RGB software for their keyboard" every single day. Everyone banned by these systems is marked a dirty cheater; they'll ignore your support requests, and sometimes even hardware-id your computer and share those hardware-id lists with other game companies. Compliance with (1) is impossible. They need to offer refunds or be honest about what you're buying; this may tangentially add a direct profit incentive to building good, accurate anti-cheat, which is something nearly none of them care about.
Weirdly, the “private companies can do what they want” angle seems pretty unpopular here.
I suspect I know what you are implying.
However there is a difference forcing a company to do additional business in the future or forcing them to not unilaterally keep the money for "purchases" made in the past.
Fully refunding customers (+interest) and/or explaining the decision to suspend the account in detail (perhaps even allowing consumers to correct potential problems) is not burdening Apple beyond reason.
No one here seems to argue that they must allow the plaintiff to continue shopping in iTunes.
However there is a difference forcing a company to do additional business in the future or forcing them to not unilaterally keep the money for "purchases" made in the past.
Fully refunding customers (+interest) and/or explaining the decision to suspend the account in detail (perhaps even allowing consumers to correct potential problems) is not burdening Apple beyond reason.
No one here seems to argue that they must allow the plaintiff to continue shopping in iTunes.
Which is bound by laws too.
Is this Matthew Prince from CloudFlare?
Nice. Now how about the Occulus Quest?
You know, that lovely physical device you supposedly buy and own, but can be denied its use indefinitely if Facebook's algorithms decide to terminate your account for some reason (which tends to be more likely if you opened an account just so you could play).
You know, that lovely physical device you supposedly buy and own, but can be denied its use indefinitely if Facebook's algorithms decide to terminate your account for some reason (which tends to be more likely if you opened an account just so you could play).
Now I want to buy an Occulus Quest and get banned by Facebook just so that I can file that suit.
Even if Apple may be justified, I would expect more professionalism from such a large company. their PR image is certainly worth many multiples of $25000. By issuing their tone deaf statement about "no reasonable person etc" they are alienating many customers. even if the are legally 100% right, that's irrelevant.
Actually, Apple isn't the first to introduce a rather novel interpretation of the word "buy". John Deere did that first saying that buying really means an "implied license" or something. I've got no idea how they can get away with redefining words in the English language.
Actually, Apple isn't the first to introduce a rather novel interpretation of the word "buy". John Deere did that first saying that buying really means an "implied license" or something. I've got no idea how they can get away with redefining words in the English language.
I have about 100 movies I’ve bought through iTunes so this is a very pertinent lawsuit for me. And no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that I would have access to the movies forever.
> And no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that I would have access to the movies forever.
Agree. However. I should be able to play the files I have downloaded no matter my account status.
I’m not sure if that’s the case with apple downloads (though it’s my primary method of buying music, and I do suspect it is the case. )
Agree. However. I should be able to play the files I have downloaded no matter my account status.
I’m not sure if that’s the case with apple downloads (though it’s my primary method of buying music, and I do suspect it is the case. )
I hope we start seeing government truly pushing back against big tech. They have become larger than countries and now just manage the tax evasions schemes that keep them so profitable.
Apple: No True Scotsman would believe they actually purchased content when clicking a button labeled Buy.
This is the reason why all my music and ebook purchases are on a file server in my house, and if a service doesn't offer those goods in a DRM-free format, they don't get my money.
Maybe what people should do is "buy" the movie on itunes, watch it and then do a credit card charge-back (possibly for e.g. 90% of the amount) with the justification that they read the terms in detail and realised that they are just renting not owning the media.
Obviously if only a couple of people would do it, there would be no effect except them getting their accounts suspended. However, it would be very interesting how this would pan out if a very large number of people would do it. How would apple react and how would the credit card companies react. Maybe someone should start a campaign to do just this.
Obviously if only a couple of people would do it, there would be no effect except them getting their accounts suspended. However, it would be very interesting how this would pan out if a very large number of people would do it. How would apple react and how would the credit card companies react. Maybe someone should start a campaign to do just this.
I don’t understand the idea of terminating entire accounts anyways. All this companies need to be able to more finely disable access if needed. It’s gotten really bad now that your personal accounts can end up being tied to business services.
Since I hold the more correct stance that these saas products are full of shit and can instantly disappear, I never dared to interpret “buy” as buy to own forever. To me “buy” on prime is “the other more expensive rent option when the cheaper rent is not available”.
Beyond the legality aspect of using the words "buy" or "purchase" is the moral one. Blocking access to content to a customer you got money from is immoral. To a certain point it's the exact opposite of piracy. If it's legal, it should be made illegal.
Also, these corporations claim their TOS allow them to deny access if they choose to, and might even have done it for legitimate reasons. But nothing is preventing them to implement restrictions on accounts rather than total deactivation.
Also, these corporations claim their TOS allow them to deny access if they choose to, and might even have done it for legitimate reasons. But nothing is preventing them to implement restrictions on accounts rather than total deactivation.
> Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely
Color me unreasonable
Color me unreasonable
I'm as big an Apple fan as they come but they've got some work to do in supporting their services.
My wife bought a subscription box with her Apple Card and somehow the subscription service assigned someone else's email address to her account and won't let her change it. For reasons I can't quite understand, that service sent her one box out of a six-box subscription so my wife called to dispute the charges with Apple Card. For a few months now she's bin in this Groundhog Day like cycle of them taking the money off the bill but then, after contacting the subscription service I assume, will put the money back on her bill until she calls to dispute it again.
Now, I know this is Goldman Sachs she's dealing with and not Apple but, it is called the "Apple Card" and I feel like Apple needs to step in and make Goldman Sachs do the right thing.
My wife bought a subscription box with her Apple Card and somehow the subscription service assigned someone else's email address to her account and won't let her change it. For reasons I can't quite understand, that service sent her one box out of a six-box subscription so my wife called to dispute the charges with Apple Card. For a few months now she's bin in this Groundhog Day like cycle of them taking the money off the bill but then, after contacting the subscription service I assume, will put the money back on her bill until she calls to dispute it again.
Now, I know this is Goldman Sachs she's dealing with and not Apple but, it is called the "Apple Card" and I feel like Apple needs to step in and make Goldman Sachs do the right thing.
Assuming things fall on the side of "indefinite access" that can't be revoked:
What happens if you have someone who is genuinely abusing your systems?
Are you just powerless until it reaches the point of criminal actions? That doesn't seem unreasonable, as I can't actually think of many examples of abuse that wouldn't be criminal..
What happens if you have someone who is genuinely abusing your systems?
Are you just powerless until it reaches the point of criminal actions? That doesn't seem unreasonable, as I can't actually think of many examples of abuse that wouldn't be criminal..
You could terminate the account and refund the purchases in full, that way you can still get the user removed from your platform. Or, better yet, stop the unification of unrelated accounts and have a user be able to purchase and watch movies without necessarily having access to iCloud and such.
There's plenty of ways to deal with this problem, but most of those cut into sales figures, such as dropping the pretense that the stuff you rent is related to owning things at all (i.e. not using the word "buy" anymore).
There's plenty of ways to deal with this problem, but most of those cut into sales figures, such as dropping the pretense that the stuff you rent is related to owning things at all (i.e. not using the word "buy" anymore).
> You could terminate the account and refund the purchases in full
So a user could sign up, watch all the movies they wanted for 10 years, and then get all their money back, provided they find a way to behave badly enough? Sounds like a pretty sweet incentive to some people, especially if you could manage to then repeat the cycle with another identity.
So a user could sign up, watch all the movies they wanted for 10 years, and then get all their money back, provided they find a way to behave badly enough? Sounds like a pretty sweet incentive to some people, especially if you could manage to then repeat the cycle with another identity.
Perhaps the refund could not be the original full price, but the current sales price available.
After all, a digital copy of a movie is a perfect copy whose quality shouldn't drop over time.
And if you buy something, it only figures that you'd be able to sell it when you're done with it. Digital media companies take that right away from you in many cases under the guise of digital subscriptions, but with Apple stating that you buy something, that doesn't seem like a big problem to me.
After all, a digital copy of a movie is a perfect copy whose quality shouldn't drop over time.
And if you buy something, it only figures that you'd be able to sell it when you're done with it. Digital media companies take that right away from you in many cases under the guise of digital subscriptions, but with Apple stating that you buy something, that doesn't seem like a big problem to me.
What is Apple's rate of return on capital? If you gave them $5 10 years ago, they have probably more than doubled it by now.
I doubt your first assumption will be the one that happens, even if this ruling does come out favorably for customers.
There's an easy out for Apple and others: you give the customer the ability to access what they paid for independently of the seller. There's no requirement for Apple to be involved any more once Apple has delivered the file in way that can be opened independent of Apple.
There's an easy out for Apple and others: you give the customer the ability to access what they paid for independently of the seller. There's no requirement for Apple to be involved any more once Apple has delivered the file in way that can be opened independent of Apple.
And folks, this is why I pirate.
Why purchase and download and be on a hope and prayer that I retain my stuff? If I download from a pirate source, I'll always retain my goods.
And https://xkcd.com/488/ is eminently relevant.
Why purchase and download and be on a hope and prayer that I retain my stuff? If I download from a pirate source, I'll always retain my goods.
And https://xkcd.com/488/ is eminently relevant.
Hot Take: Just pirate everything and be done with it.
Between 5 Suscription Services it would take to get the few TV Shows& Movies I care about, Privacy concerns and unethical behaviour like this i just can't be bothered to look for "legal" sources anymore when any decent private tracker has everything i need in one place anyway.
The content mafia didn't get it with music, until perhaps spotify for a while and now thats beeing split apart again aswell, they don't get it for tv shows and movies either.
Between 5 Suscription Services it would take to get the few TV Shows& Movies I care about, Privacy concerns and unethical behaviour like this i just can't be bothered to look for "legal" sources anymore when any decent private tracker has everything i need in one place anyway.
The content mafia didn't get it with music, until perhaps spotify for a while and now thats beeing split apart again aswell, they don't get it for tv shows and movies either.
> Between 5 Suscription Services it would take to get the few TV Shows& Movies I care about, Privacy concerns and unethical behaviour like this i just can't be bothered to look for "legal" sources anymore when any decent private tracker has everything i need in one place anyway.
As a reaction to decades of cable TV, the market wanted and celebrated Netflix, one place to pay and watch all the shows and movies you want.
But with time, what we got are just multiple cable TV packages served over the internet, each with their own subscription model and poorly developed app.
As a reaction to decades of cable TV, the market wanted and celebrated Netflix, one place to pay and watch all the shows and movies you want.
But with time, what we got are just multiple cable TV packages served over the internet, each with their own subscription model and poorly developed app.
You don't need to pirate it, you can just continue to buy physical media. CDs are unencrypted. The encryption on DVDs and blu-rays has long been broken. I continue to buy physical discs, rip them into my library, and then keep the discs as backups. It's the best of all worlds, and is both legal (in most places) and moral.
How inconvenient. Waiting for a CD/DVD to be delivered, ripping and cracking, saving it to my NAS where it cost even more money in form of storage space vs having a 5$/month vpn a raspberry pi with a harddrive connnected to it and just clicking download for whatever i need, whenever i want. The Idea of netflix and other streaming services is geat, i really like it, it's just the cable-tv-packagification that annoys me.
What if you cannot buy the blu ray
in your region and wanna watch a particular movie ?
ive never been able to stomach that idea of having a physical collection of all my favourite movies or albums. some day in the future when you kick the bucket they will all be thrown out. maybe if you are lucky they might be sold off to some other collector or recycled but i would bet that eventually a lot of it will end up in a landfill somewhere.
it just seems like such an absurd idea that everyone would have their own collection of media like this. all of that plastic being generated and then eventually thrown out just so you can have a dvd sit on a shelf where you will use it once every few years, once a decade or maybe once and then never again. i don't know if moral is a word i would use to describe all that
it just seems like such an absurd idea that everyone would have their own collection of media like this. all of that plastic being generated and then eventually thrown out just so you can have a dvd sit on a shelf where you will use it once every few years, once a decade or maybe once and then never again. i don't know if moral is a word i would use to describe all that
There is also plenty of media that isn't available via legal means.
> Suscription Services
I like the term
I like the term
The reality is that most big tech companies want to get all the benefits of "going digital", while shifting all the costs or downsides of that move to the consumers. This is not accidental. This is a long-term strategy backed by an elaborate PR campaign. The campaign was so successful that most people aren't even aware of how bizarre the whole idea of "renting" digital content really is. You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum.
How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media? This is a questions a lot of companies don't want you to be thinking about.
More generally, it all comes down to the questions brilliantly formulated by Neal Postman:
https://strawdogs.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/neil-postmans-6-q...
How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media? This is a questions a lot of companies don't want you to be thinking about.
More generally, it all comes down to the questions brilliantly formulated by Neal Postman:
https://strawdogs.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/neil-postmans-6-q...
People are so happy that they are fine with not finding their liked/fav songs regularly on Spotify even after they notice it has gone missing.
And they also kinda accept the mediocre recommendation (often laden with ads and "place in front" for pay content) which just feels like habit after a while.
And they also kinda accept the mediocre recommendation (often laden with ads and "place in front" for pay content) which just feels like habit after a while.
Wouldn't say people are happy. "They accept" is much closer. They accept the mediocre, because there's nothing they can do about it, and they don't understand how any of it works.
I’m happy. It’s not really a big deal to me if my uploaded content is removed and I think the service that Spotify provides is worth more than what I pay for it.
I'm glad, and I don't want to make you stop being happy. Happiness is more important than technology fads of the week.
That said, I'm no longer using Spotify, and disappearing songs had a lot to do with it. I've been paying for a premium account for some 6-7 years, way longer than I should - it took me over a year to notice that I'm not actually using it, because half of my favorite songs are gone, and whenever I search for something particular, half of the time it's not there (or worse, there's some shitty cover of it). And it's not just the catalog that suffered since - also the UI of their mobile app rotten over time, and became incomprehensive.
But back in ~2012 - 2015 I sure as hell was happy with their service, and evangelized it to all my friends, and I did feel it's worth more than what I'm paying for it.
I guess losing music on Spotify isn't that big of a deal for most people, because - extrapolating music-related behavior from a couple dozen non-tech people I've observed over the years - the most popular music player isn't Spotify, it's YouTube. And YouTube does have it all, at least for now.
That said, I'm no longer using Spotify, and disappearing songs had a lot to do with it. I've been paying for a premium account for some 6-7 years, way longer than I should - it took me over a year to notice that I'm not actually using it, because half of my favorite songs are gone, and whenever I search for something particular, half of the time it's not there (or worse, there's some shitty cover of it). And it's not just the catalog that suffered since - also the UI of their mobile app rotten over time, and became incomprehensive.
But back in ~2012 - 2015 I sure as hell was happy with their service, and evangelized it to all my friends, and I did feel it's worth more than what I'm paying for it.
I guess losing music on Spotify isn't that big of a deal for most people, because - extrapolating music-related behavior from a couple dozen non-tech people I've observed over the years - the most popular music player isn't Spotify, it's YouTube. And YouTube does have it all, at least for now.
Same here. I used to have to borrow, steal, or buy content, but now for about 50 bucks a month i can subscribe to a few services and get all the tv, games, and music I want. Until that changes considerably, I'm fine with the status quo.
> People are so happy that they are fine with not finding their liked/fav songs regularly on Spotify even after they notice it has gone missing.
I'd believe they were actually happy if there was a streaming service that actually didn't have content randomly disappear like it does on Spotify, and if customers still liked Spotify more.
To me, at least, it seems like consumers don't have many choices. They have to compromise with Spotify and others dropping content at the whims of rights holders.
I'd believe they were actually happy if there was a streaming service that actually didn't have content randomly disappear like it does on Spotify, and if customers still liked Spotify more.
To me, at least, it seems like consumers don't have many choices. They have to compromise with Spotify and others dropping content at the whims of rights holders.
[deleted]
It’s particularly noticeable on spotify. I actually don’t mind the rental model (though it’s overpriced for how I use it), but you cannot remove songs from curated playlists and expect me not to notice.
The concept of renting alone is not bad - I mean, they have something you want (e.g. movie), you pay to watch it, then you don't need it anymore. Tried and true concept, same as me renting a tool from Home Depot - I use it for a day, then I don't need it anymore. It doesn't matter how replicable it is - when I use it, I don't care much about whether Home Depot has more tools like that.
What is ridiculous is that they pretend the other option - "buying" - which is usually much more costly - is anything close to what people mean by "buying" in a non-digital non-DRM world. If I buy a book, the book is mine. I can read it forever, I can sell it, I can use it as a doorstopper if I like, but whatever I do it's mine. If I "buy" a movie on DRM platform, I can watch is only as long as the platform allows me to, and yet most people do not realize the profound difference. I think it's a good thing there's now a growing awareness that his is false pretense and it's time to shine a light on it.
What is ridiculous is that they pretend the other option - "buying" - which is usually much more costly - is anything close to what people mean by "buying" in a non-digital non-DRM world. If I buy a book, the book is mine. I can read it forever, I can sell it, I can use it as a doorstopper if I like, but whatever I do it's mine. If I "buy" a movie on DRM platform, I can watch is only as long as the platform allows me to, and yet most people do not realize the profound difference. I think it's a good thing there's now a growing awareness that his is false pretense and it's time to shine a light on it.
> You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum.
This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
> How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media?
If you look beyond the big players you'll find some people earn more (semi-)self-publishing on the internet than they'd have ever earned with a publishing deal. On-demand/low volume print and having digital as your default channel also made "real" publishing deals available to more people.
Being on store shelves was not actually that much better than Spotify for musicians accounting for volume, they just had less competition because now shelf space is unlimited.
This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
> How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media?
If you look beyond the big players you'll find some people earn more (semi-)self-publishing on the internet than they'd have ever earned with a publishing deal. On-demand/low volume print and having digital as your default channel also made "real" publishing deals available to more people.
Being on store shelves was not actually that much better than Spotify for musicians accounting for volume, they just had less competition because now shelf space is unlimited.
>> You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum.
>This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
When I pay for a book in a bookstore, part of the money goes towards maintaining the system that produces and distributes books. The system includes various parties, like printers, publishers, distributors, books stores and so on. It's far more than 10% and there is nothing wrong with paying for a reasonably working distributed system like that.
Replacing all of those companies with a single megacorp like Amazon or Apple is not going to result in the same system running cheaper. It will create an entirely different system. Over time that new system will shift to publish entirely different type of content, it will have an entirely different relationship with consumers and authors and it will have completely different effect on the society at large. Given what I see already, I seriously doubt those changes will skew towards the positive.
>This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
When I pay for a book in a bookstore, part of the money goes towards maintaining the system that produces and distributes books. The system includes various parties, like printers, publishers, distributors, books stores and so on. It's far more than 10% and there is nothing wrong with paying for a reasonably working distributed system like that.
Replacing all of those companies with a single megacorp like Amazon or Apple is not going to result in the same system running cheaper. It will create an entirely different system. Over time that new system will shift to publish entirely different type of content, it will have an entirely different relationship with consumers and authors and it will have completely different effect on the society at large. Given what I see already, I seriously doubt those changes will skew towards the positive.
> It will create an entirely different system.
Simple as that sounds I didn't think of it before. It seems that if all the old systems can/might/will be replaced by the mega corp we could simply set a modest fixed megacorp-tax of say 1-2% and have the rest go to the creator of the text or video.
It was the author who provided the excuse in the old system why we should pay for easily replicated data. The argument that we should pay to be able to find the data was never a thing. It might as well be but it isn't. We can generously give this party 1% for the great effort they made finding the product I wanted to purchase. (The author should probably pay the megacorp for hosting and bandwidth)
After all, the mega corp is our hostage first and we are theirs second.
Simple as that sounds I didn't think of it before. It seems that if all the old systems can/might/will be replaced by the mega corp we could simply set a modest fixed megacorp-tax of say 1-2% and have the rest go to the creator of the text or video.
It was the author who provided the excuse in the old system why we should pay for easily replicated data. The argument that we should pay to be able to find the data was never a thing. It might as well be but it isn't. We can generously give this party 1% for the great effort they made finding the product I wanted to purchase. (The author should probably pay the megacorp for hosting and bandwidth)
After all, the mega corp is our hostage first and we are theirs second.
Only possible if the power dynamic somehow shifts in a significant way. Maybe it will, but I'm not very optimistic.
> we could simply set a modest fixed megacorp-tax of say 1-2%
Yeah this will surely be more like 30%
Yeah this will surely be more like 30%
> You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
It's true the physical book manufacturing is only ~10% of the price.
But you're forgetting costs of shipping, warehousing, stocking, retail, etc. Separate from manufacturing, roughly 40% of what you pay for a book goes to the physical retailer, and that's actually the largest chunk.
When you add up all the costs of producing and transporting and selling the physical book to a customer (and the publisher taking back unsold copies), they make up the majority of a book's cost.
The actual "license of content" cost of a physical book is a minority of the price you pay.
It's true the physical book manufacturing is only ~10% of the price.
But you're forgetting costs of shipping, warehousing, stocking, retail, etc. Separate from manufacturing, roughly 40% of what you pay for a book goes to the physical retailer, and that's actually the largest chunk.
When you add up all the costs of producing and transporting and selling the physical book to a customer (and the publisher taking back unsold copies), they make up the majority of a book's cost.
The actual "license of content" cost of a physical book is a minority of the price you pay.
But with a book, you have that privilege in perpetuity, and you can loan, transfer, and resell it.
Coincidentally, NFT’s got the “transfer” side of the equation, but forgot about the “privilege” part! The tokens are yours in perpetuity, and can be transferred to others, but it’s not at all clear what privilege they provide.
Coincidentally, NFT’s got the “transfer” side of the equation, but forgot about the “privilege” part! The tokens are yours in perpetuity, and can be transferred to others, but it’s not at all clear what privilege they provide.
> Coincidentally, NFT’s got the “transfer” side of the equation, but forgot about the “privilege” part! The tokens are yours in perpetuity, and can be transferred to others, but it’s not at all clear what privilege they provide.
Exactly! This is the part that I cannot get past whenever people talk about NFTs. They are a neat toy, self-contained, and having unambiguous ownership of the NFT. But there is absolutely nothing in the real world connected to it. It's like those pie-in-the-sky physics models that have hundreds of free parameters unconstrained by any experimental measurement. Sure those models might make some interesting predictions, but they have nothing tying them to the real world.
I could imagine a system where NFTs are used to establish ownership, but that requires there to be some trusted source that signs the initial NFT. This could be a land surveyor to make a NFT that represents property borders, or a patent office to make a NFT that represents a granted patent, or a MMO video game company to make a NFT that represents a particular asset within the game. But as it is, J.K. Rowling could make a NFT representing "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", and I could make one as well. There's no indication of which one is a valid link from mathematical space to real space.
NFTs need a legal system in order to tie them to anything outside of the NFT ecosystem. They need trusted authorities who are the only ones that can generate NFTs with specific legal authority. And once you have that trusted authority, there's no point in having any of the other trustless blockchain architecture whose sole, flimsy excuse for existing is in avoiding having a trusted authority in the first place.
(Sorry, that turned into a longer rant than I had expected, but your phrasing crystallized some ideas that had been floating around my head, and I wanted to write them out to see where they went.)
Exactly! This is the part that I cannot get past whenever people talk about NFTs. They are a neat toy, self-contained, and having unambiguous ownership of the NFT. But there is absolutely nothing in the real world connected to it. It's like those pie-in-the-sky physics models that have hundreds of free parameters unconstrained by any experimental measurement. Sure those models might make some interesting predictions, but they have nothing tying them to the real world.
I could imagine a system where NFTs are used to establish ownership, but that requires there to be some trusted source that signs the initial NFT. This could be a land surveyor to make a NFT that represents property borders, or a patent office to make a NFT that represents a granted patent, or a MMO video game company to make a NFT that represents a particular asset within the game. But as it is, J.K. Rowling could make a NFT representing "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", and I could make one as well. There's no indication of which one is a valid link from mathematical space to real space.
NFTs need a legal system in order to tie them to anything outside of the NFT ecosystem. They need trusted authorities who are the only ones that can generate NFTs with specific legal authority. And once you have that trusted authority, there's no point in having any of the other trustless blockchain architecture whose sole, flimsy excuse for existing is in avoiding having a trusted authority in the first place.
(Sorry, that turned into a longer rant than I had expected, but your phrasing crystallized some ideas that had been floating around my head, and I wanted to write them out to see where they went.)
This is the same issue all decentralized systems of ownership/value have, including all cryptocurrencies. Technology itself can't be a trust anchor without enforcement.
The dollar has value due to a mixture of trust in its continued value and in the entity enforcing it.
Bitcoin has value mostly because people speculate it has value. The extra decentralization loses its value as soon as you add enforcement, because now it is just a really complicated dollar.
Similarly, smart contracts do not solve an actual problem we can't solve with real contracts much cheaper, and the contract itself is unenforceable if any participant stops cooperating.
If you have to rely on police and courts to enforce your smart contract, why do you need the decentralized smart contract to begin with? Can you even model a smart contract that satisfies the legal constraints of all countries where participating in it is possible? Why aren't you just leaving this to lawyers and signatures on paper?
The dollar has value due to a mixture of trust in its continued value and in the entity enforcing it.
Bitcoin has value mostly because people speculate it has value. The extra decentralization loses its value as soon as you add enforcement, because now it is just a really complicated dollar.
Similarly, smart contracts do not solve an actual problem we can't solve with real contracts much cheaper, and the contract itself is unenforceable if any participant stops cooperating.
If you have to rely on police and courts to enforce your smart contract, why do you need the decentralized smart contract to begin with? Can you even model a smart contract that satisfies the legal constraints of all countries where participating in it is possible? Why aren't you just leaving this to lawyers and signatures on paper?
I would say this is more a fundamental problem/feature of human relations than technology. Every transaction, every contract, every treaty and every law has, on its own, little more value than a receipt. Centralization doesn't really solve that issue so much as it pretends to add the weight of government/society/God/{abstract entity of choice} where there is none. What's remained the same since time immemorial is that every act of trade is done voluntarily or under force. What blockchains and bitcoin change is by making the receipts self-provable and consistent without needing more information than a public key and a time of transaction. It doesn't change the need to assert one's property rights. That is still the purview of law and law enforcement short of a breakthrough in jurisprudence.
Your point about the dollar is flawed. The value of the dollar may be a floating currency at its most ideal but its "true" value, outside of forex, is determined by fiat. The Fed just financially engineers it in a very complicated manner with veritable pulleys and levers and, somewhere along the way, a gun to everyone's private bank account in the form of artificial inflation/negative interest rates, punitive taxes, and from time to time, suing institutions that make US financial theater look bad by threat of dubious litigation.
>>If you have to rely on police and courts to enforce your smart contract, why do you need the decentralized smart contract to begin with?
If police departments have to rely on private citizens to be bounty hunters or informants, is there a point to having a police force at all? What's the point of a legal system that depends on executive enforcement when the citizenry is capable of doing so on its own? Why do we have to have a mayor/governor/president? Why not a government of individual people addressing their own affairs as need be and judges/arbitrators as referees? The answer to both sets of questions is that they are both options to a larger question: "How should one handle interpersonal expectations and violations thereof?"
Your point about the dollar is flawed. The value of the dollar may be a floating currency at its most ideal but its "true" value, outside of forex, is determined by fiat. The Fed just financially engineers it in a very complicated manner with veritable pulleys and levers and, somewhere along the way, a gun to everyone's private bank account in the form of artificial inflation/negative interest rates, punitive taxes, and from time to time, suing institutions that make US financial theater look bad by threat of dubious litigation.
>>If you have to rely on police and courts to enforce your smart contract, why do you need the decentralized smart contract to begin with?
If police departments have to rely on private citizens to be bounty hunters or informants, is there a point to having a police force at all? What's the point of a legal system that depends on executive enforcement when the citizenry is capable of doing so on its own? Why do we have to have a mayor/governor/president? Why not a government of individual people addressing their own affairs as need be and judges/arbitrators as referees? The answer to both sets of questions is that they are both options to a larger question: "How should one handle interpersonal expectations and violations thereof?"
I'm not sure if you went anywhere with the question of "what use does a smart contract actually have" beyond "justifying vigilante justice" or "anarcho-capitalism" (which, let's be clear, boils down to feudalism in which they'd be little less than a formality).
I addressed it in my first paragraph but, to repeat, a smart contract is a self-provable receipt.
In addition, I don't see how you read my statement and came away with the idea that I support vigilante justice or anarcho-capitalism. My questions were pointed towards addressing the unstated assumptions inherent to your question and the other questions in your post that I didn't quote. Namely, that a centralized authority or agreement of centralized authorities is a requirement to render any transaction/contract/agreement valid. That's an assumption I find to be unproven and easily contested.
In addition, I don't see how you read my statement and came away with the idea that I support vigilante justice or anarcho-capitalism. My questions were pointed towards addressing the unstated assumptions inherent to your question and the other questions in your post that I didn't quote. Namely, that a centralized authority or agreement of centralized authorities is a requirement to render any transaction/contract/agreement valid. That's an assumption I find to be unproven and easily contested.
NFTs need a legal / authority system ensuring they are tied to something. I agree and this is why NFTs and block chain are simply not needed at all. A simple certificate signed by an authority would make more sense .. no purpose in a anonymous block chain for this I can see.
[deleted]
Well, I was hinting at smaller digital storefronts! Many of them do offer DRM free digital books.
I can't comment on NFTs beyond "wow, what a wasteful scam".
I can't comment on NFTs beyond "wow, what a wasteful scam".
> But with a book, you have that privilege in perpetuity, and you can loan, transfer, and resell it.
But you don't. Not really. DVDs and books only last, what, 30-40 years. Are you entitled to a free replacement after that time is up?
But you don't. Not really. DVDs and books only last, what, 30-40 years. Are you entitled to a free replacement after that time is up?
Books will last much longer than that. Their most common mode of destruction is storage-in-landfill. Moisture (may that be flooding or mold) and fire are the main environmental factors diminishing the lifespan of a book. Things such as the acidity of paper are only an issue for book collectors and libraries. That leaves wear and tear, which can usually be repaired. In other words, books are more than capable of lasting for the lifetime of the original purchaser.
Now contrast that to digital downloads with DRM, where you are at the whim of the vendor. The worse example I've seen is a perpetual license expiring after 2 years, though I have lost access to several hundred dollars worth over purchases over the past decade (and I'm not a big spender).
Now contrast that to digital downloads with DRM, where you are at the whim of the vendor. The worse example I've seen is a perpetual license expiring after 2 years, though I have lost access to several hundred dollars worth over purchases over the past decade (and I'm not a big spender).
> books only last, what, 30-40 years.
I have little pulp paperbacks that are older than 40 years, and those are about the least durable books around. I expect finer books to last 100 years and as many readings... and to go on to do it again. Barring environmental damage or my deliberately binning them, I expect most books I’ve already had 20 years to outlive me by going another 50+... and I got most of them used to begin with, often already 10-80 years old when I got them (a few older, but they’re outliers). If the next owner re-binds them many could survive another lifetime or two.
I have little pulp paperbacks that are older than 40 years, and those are about the least durable books around. I expect finer books to last 100 years and as many readings... and to go on to do it again. Barring environmental damage or my deliberately binning them, I expect most books I’ve already had 20 years to outlive me by going another 50+... and I got most of them used to begin with, often already 10-80 years old when I got them (a few older, but they’re outliers). If the next owner re-binds them many could survive another lifetime or two.
> You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
To be honest this is a really great point I've seen brought up very rarely. I think the digital aspect makes it so extremely obvious that it forced the conversation.
That said, there are more costs than the physical medium itself. There's the physical shelf space copies consumes (vs. digital media which can be copied on demand), the costs associated with the creation and shipping of the item, in-store human handling, not to mention all the consumer-level effort and costs of purchasing the physical media (going to the store and carrying it around, having it occupy space at home, taking care of not damaging it…)
To be honest this is a really great point I've seen brought up very rarely. I think the digital aspect makes it so extremely obvious that it forced the conversation.
That said, there are more costs than the physical medium itself. There's the physical shelf space copies consumes (vs. digital media which can be copied on demand), the costs associated with the creation and shipping of the item, in-store human handling, not to mention all the consumer-level effort and costs of purchasing the physical media (going to the store and carrying it around, having it occupy space at home, taking care of not damaging it…)
These things all still exist in some capacity, though obviously it has become more efficient. Bandwidth isn't free, for instance.
The cost of publishing hasn't changed much. It just shifted from "making it to the limited selection" to "being visible in the essentially limitless selection". In the end you still need to make deals with retailers and invest into advertising (especially when storefronts don't do deals - or at least say they don't, hi spotify).
The cost of publishing hasn't changed much. It just shifted from "making it to the limited selection" to "being visible in the essentially limitless selection". In the end you still need to make deals with retailers and invest into advertising (especially when storefronts don't do deals - or at least say they don't, hi spotify).
>This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
Except you're not renting books or optical media. You're buying them, and you can resell them or loan them to other people no problem.
Except you're not renting books or optical media. You're buying them, and you can resell them or loan them to other people no problem.
For collectors or even casual consumers, this secondary market has as much or more value than the primary market. My wife and son borrow an absurd amount of library books. I maintain a library of movies and games, most of which are second hand. And if I don’t like something, it goes back into the market for someone else to enjoy.
There’s depreciation and an ultimate limit to how many times something can be lent, which only exists artificially in the digital world (libraries get so many “lends” of a digital license before they have to buy another). On the other hand, for end users, digital licenses are completely missing lending and selling and in some cases even backup and format shifting.
Has the first sale doctrine ever been applied to these licenses in court?
There’s depreciation and an ultimate limit to how many times something can be lent, which only exists artificially in the digital world (libraries get so many “lends” of a digital license before they have to buy another). On the other hand, for end users, digital licenses are completely missing lending and selling and in some cases even backup and format shifting.
Has the first sale doctrine ever been applied to these licenses in court?
How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators
FWIW, Apple answered this partly recently. At least as it applies to music. It's not very much, but it's supposed to be a lot more than most other services.
I believe the context was refuting accusations in the Spotify dustup. I saw it on a site like macrumors, so some salt may be required.
FWIW, Apple answered this partly recently. At least as it applies to music. It's not very much, but it's supposed to be a lot more than most other services.
I believe the context was refuting accusations in the Spotify dustup. I saw it on a site like macrumors, so some salt may be required.
> FWIW, Apple answered this partly recently. At least as it applies to music. It's not very much, but it's supposed to be a lot more than most other services.
Bandcamp gives artists 85% to 90% of the revenue they collect.
Bandcamp gives artists 85% to 90% of the revenue they collect.
Tidal, I believe, is the streaming service that gives most to the creators. This may or may not be related to Jay-Z being on the board.
Don't worry, Silicon Valley has already bought Tidal in the meantime.
This might be the escape hatch from the ever-lowering spiked ceiling that is licensing instead of purchasing.
If those “buy” and “purchase” buttons had to be replaced with “license”, then companies might start moving back towards actual purchases.
If those “buy” and “purchase” buttons had to be replaced with “license”, then companies might start moving back towards actual purchases.
[deleted]
This is why I'll keep pirating content.
Good. These days when a lot of possessions are not physical, and not even bytes on a hard drive, but just some entries in some company database allowing you a limited access we need more rules than "companies are allowed to do whatever they want".
I don’t know much about DRM but seems like they should make it platform independent such that if you buy something from any store your digital rights transfer to any other service (with a small fee).
Typically I’m anti blockchain, but perhaps there’s a use in here for it.
Typically I’m anti blockchain, but perhaps there’s a use in here for it.
This is why I don't buy anything on app stores ever.
We were upset when content "bought" in the UK disappeared after we moved to NZ (specifically, I think it happened when we changed credit card billing address). We complained and they gave some of it back "at their discretion", but we weren't even sure what we'd lost. It seemed completely absurd that they used the word "buy" in this way.
Is there a defined "age limit" on iTunes accounts (or any other digital asset account)? I don't know the ToS, but I assume that it's illegal to sell, trade or gift an iTunes account to someone else. Assuming that I continue to maintain such an account for the rest of my natural life, die, and then bequeath the account to someone, will there come a point where Apple says "this account is older than any human, therefore it is no longer a valid one and will be disabled"?
Personal computing itself is not yet older than any human and iTunes is only 20, so it'll be a while yet before Apple has to make a decision based on whether an Apple account is older than any human.
It's an interesting question, but I bet the computing, cultural, and even legal landscapes will have changed a lot by the time your premise comes about. There are other scenarios that could happen in the shorter term, like Apple revamping what an "Apple account" is, or getting out of the digital entertainment assets business altogether, or shifting its iTunes platform from the internet to the neuralcloud (which is, of course, not compatible with legacy "merely digital" formats)
It's an interesting question, but I bet the computing, cultural, and even legal landscapes will have changed a lot by the time your premise comes about. There are other scenarios that could happen in the shorter term, like Apple revamping what an "Apple account" is, or getting out of the digital entertainment assets business altogether, or shifting its iTunes platform from the internet to the neuralcloud (which is, of course, not compatible with legacy "merely digital" formats)
It seems the prudent thing would be to allow access to existing material while preventing them from doing anything to their account besides changing the password.
I actually had beef with Valve for doing something tangentially related.
A while back they updated their service provider agreement to require users of steam agree to arbitration rather than court action.
The problem is that a user could not access their purchased games even in an offline manner until they agreed to the new terms. I was presented with the new terms, and clicked "I disagree" and Steam immediately exited.
I even wrote Gabe about this because I found it fundamentally anti-American.
I'm no lawyer, but I could see that forcing someone to agree to terms by withholding "property" they have legally purchased would not be enforceable.
A while back they updated their service provider agreement to require users of steam agree to arbitration rather than court action.
The problem is that a user could not access their purchased games even in an offline manner until they agreed to the new terms. I was presented with the new terms, and clicked "I disagree" and Steam immediately exited.
I even wrote Gabe about this because I found it fundamentally anti-American.
I'm no lawyer, but I could see that forcing someone to agree to terms by withholding "property" they have legally purchased would not be enforceable.
I hope this ends with a legal requirement to refund all purchases if an account is ever terminated on digital platforms.
It's a leading reason why I don't purchase subscriptions to streaming services or "buy" from digital stores. If it's not tangible I'm not buying it.
I'd also like to see a legal requirement for cloud services to allow access to stored content if an account is terminated. None of this "Our bot thinks you're bad so your accounts forever suspended without a human appeal system. Say goodbye to all your photos"
It's a leading reason why I don't purchase subscriptions to streaming services or "buy" from digital stores. If it's not tangible I'm not buying it.
I'd also like to see a legal requirement for cloud services to allow access to stored content if an account is terminated. None of this "Our bot thinks you're bad so your accounts forever suspended without a human appeal system. Say goodbye to all your photos"
> Apple also advertise the fact that consumers can keep their purchased files in the cloud for later download. And when using certain settings on iOS and Fire devices, Apple will automatically remove from a device content and apps that haven’t been accessed in a while, requiring the user to download them once more.
Oh gosh, there’s a huge problem on iOS & iPadOS with this. Files app and Books app (and even Photos) will prune files from the local file system to save space. This is alright in itself, but the user has very little to no control over which files are selected algorithmically for this process (there is no “never prune THIS file/folder” option). What’s much worse, there are no SLAs on how quickly the download will occur. I don’t know if it’s regional, but in Singapore I’ve found books app & files app never finish downloading content especially if you request for multiple files - even on WiFi & power. I work around this by storing zip files which I download and extract each time - because at least a single file might succeed downloading (higher chance of success).
This is a huge problem for someone who relies on iCloud when I need a file urgently on the go and all I have is 4G.
Oh gosh, there’s a huge problem on iOS & iPadOS with this. Files app and Books app (and even Photos) will prune files from the local file system to save space. This is alright in itself, but the user has very little to no control over which files are selected algorithmically for this process (there is no “never prune THIS file/folder” option). What’s much worse, there are no SLAs on how quickly the download will occur. I don’t know if it’s regional, but in Singapore I’ve found books app & files app never finish downloading content especially if you request for multiple files - even on WiFi & power. I work around this by storing zip files which I download and extract each time - because at least a single file might succeed downloading (higher chance of success).
This is a huge problem for someone who relies on iCloud when I need a file urgently on the go and all I have is 4G.
This is why I choose not to purchase streaming services (at least for music.) I buy the tracks I want on CD or vinyl or download.
> Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely.
I find myself reasonable and if I purchased something, I expect it to have access to it as long as the platform exists. And if they are planning to go out of content hosting business or close one’s account, then I would expect that they provide a reasonable notice and a way to download all the purchases content.
I find myself reasonable and if I purchased something, I expect it to have access to it as long as the platform exists. And if they are planning to go out of content hosting business or close one’s account, then I would expect that they provide a reasonable notice and a way to download all the purchases content.
It's very obvious (to those who know how FAANG walled gardens work) that it's a rental and contingent upon them not evaporating your account for some stupid reason. It's entirely non-obvious to the layperson.
Courts clarifying the first sale doctrine here would help a lot.
IMO, one should be able to resell or transfer software or media licenses they've already paid for. Moving online from physical media shouldn't suddenly shaft the consumer and make their media purchases evaporate when they die or lose their email address.