Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Onion AV Club)   Apple is still fighting to keep you from owning what you bought from them   (music.avclub.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Lawyer, Court, Trial, Plaintiff, App Store, Revoke, plaintiff David Andino, Apple's ability  
•       •       •

1239 clicks; posted to STEM » on 23 Apr 2021 at 12:00 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



64 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-23 11:16:45 AM  
This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.
 
2021-04-23 11:48:37 AM  

Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.


The thing is, DRM is just a speed bump. And with many tools out there can be removed from most content.
 
2021-04-23 12:14:50 PM  

Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.


Take away the access I paid for?

Reeee-fund
 
2021-04-23 12:25:07 PM  
Yeah, not sure why we're talking about DRM. When you buy content on a platform it's generally pretty clear that your access to said content is only available through that platform (thinking of the likes of Steam, but applies to ITunes and suchlike too.)

The issue here is that you 'buy' something and then later they take it off of the store and make it unavailable to you. "Hey, I paid $50 for the Rolling Stones Box Set, now Rolling Stones is blocking Apple Music from hosting their music so I can't listen any more!" That's definitely a huge risk when purchasing a licence for something dependent on platform and I can see there being a case for a full refund. When you buy it, you are indeed assuming that you will own the rights to it indefinitely.

The lawsuit seems weird though; this guy is suing because they 'might' pull content in the future? Seems like you would have to prove actual damages rather than use the courts to pre-emptively rectify some potential, unknown damage.
 
2021-04-23 12:26:31 PM  

Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.



a) Apple arguably has more market power now than the content providers and can dictate terms.

b) If they fail to do that, then the B2B terms need to flow down to the B2C level.  Don't sell me something that you aren't legally able to sell.  Come up with a new word if you need to.
 
2021-04-23 12:26:42 PM  

scanman61: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Take away the access I paid for?

Reeee-fund


From who, Apple? Nope.

The credit card company? As much as they want to keep you as a customer there's only so much you can dispute, and quite likely a cutoff time.
 
2021-04-23 12:29:44 PM  
Don't buy anything from them. See how quickly they change their iTune.
 
2021-04-23 12:34:36 PM  

Merltech: The thing is, DRM is just a speed bump. And with many tools out there can be removed from most content.


True, but the average person wouldn't know how. I'm anti-DRM myself, but it's a hard thing to fight.  I do support DRM-free software with my wallet by buying most of my games through GOG, but that's not really possible for movies of TV shows except for physical copies.

scanman61: Take away the access I paid for?

Reeee-fund


Oh, I agree.  I think the whole "you aren't buying the thing, you're buying a license to use the thing indefinitely or until we revoke access" thing is absolute stinking bullshiat.  Fark you, I paid for a thing, so that thing is mine, end of transaction. If I buy a DVD or BluRay, that DVD or BluRay is mine, period.  If I buy the equivalent thing online in digital form, you can't then change the rules and say "No, not yours, but we'll let you use it until we decide to take it away."  Fark that.  Sadly, companies have been working hard to alter the century-old Doctrine of First Sale to change the rules for digital distribution, and they've been winning.  That needs to change.  Not necessarily to allow the resale of purchased digital goods the same as it exists for physical goods (I get why that's problematic; digital goods are infinitely replicable by anyone), but at the very least to confer ownership of digital goods to the purchaser the same as if it were a physical good to allow for indefinite use without the seller's ability to revoke access at any time.
 
2021-04-23 12:38:55 PM  

freakdiablo: scanman61: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Take away the access I paid for?

Reeee-fund

From who, Apple? Nope.

The credit card company? As much as they want to keep you as a customer there's only so much you can dispute, and quite likely a cutoff time.


From whoever took my money in the first place
 
2021-04-23 12:42:15 PM  

Merltech: The thing is, DRM is just a speed bump. And with many tools out there can be removed from most content.


Yep.  The only digital content I buy is either DRM-free (the occasional MP3 from Amazon) or ebooks (at least a dozen every month).  After I sync my Kindle, I copy the books to my computer, run them through DeDRM, then load them into Calibre.  Quite a few of them are sold without DRM restrictions anyway, but I still run everything through it.
 
2021-04-23 12:42:30 PM  

Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.


Librem 5:  someone called??
 
2021-04-23 12:44:18 PM  

Shaggy_C: Yeah, not sure why we're talking about DRM. When you buy content on a platform it's generally pretty clear that your access to said content is only available through that platform (thinking of the likes of Steam, but applies to ITunes and suchlike too.)

The issue here is that you 'buy' something and then later they take it off of the store and make it unavailable to you. "Hey, I paid $50 for the Rolling Stones Box Set, now Rolling Stones is blocking Apple Music from hosting their music so I can't listen any more!" That's definitely a huge risk when purchasing a licence for something dependent on platform and I can see there being a case for a full refund. When you buy it, you are indeed assuming that you will own the rights to it indefinitely.

The lawsuit seems weird though; this guy is suing because they 'might' pull content in the future? Seems like you would have to prove actual damages rather than use the courts to pre-emptively rectify some potential, unknown damage.


This lawsuit, like the headline, is aimed at creating bad publicity for Apple.
 
2021-04-23 12:44:20 PM  

FrancoFile: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.


a) Apple arguably has more market power now than the content providers and can dictate terms.

b) If they fail to do that, then the B2B terms need to flow down to the B2C level.  Don't sell me something that you aren't legally able to sell.  Come up with a new word if you need to.


AppleHeads:  welcome to your Master
 
2021-04-23 12:45:33 PM  

Linux_Yes: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Librem 5:  someone called??


No, no one called. Librem isn't selling drm free content.

Don't you need to review some source code to verify your Linux system isn't being comprised by security researchers putting holes into the kernel or something?
 
2021-04-23 12:48:54 PM  

Quantumbunny: Linux_Yes: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Librem 5:  someone called??

No, no one called. Librem isn't selling drm free content.

Don't you need to review some source code to verify your Linux system isn't being comprised by security researchers putting holes into the kernel or something?


Or you can use code that bugs are never announced for because of nondisclosure agreements.

If security holes are not announced to the public they dont exist.

Giggle
 
2021-04-23 12:49:00 PM  
Copyright terms should only be 14 years long and never apply to music or entertainment media.

Constitutional Originalist Justice Amy Barrett must agree with me or else she can't call herself a Constitutional Originalist anymore.
 
2021-04-23 12:51:37 PM  

Quantumbunny: Linux_Yes: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Librem 5:  someone called??

No, no one called. Librem isn't selling drm free content.

Don't you need to review some source code to verify your Linux system isn't being comprised by security researchers putting holes into the kernel or something?


The poor things havent figured out that u cant kill something that doesnt have a head.
 
2021-04-23 12:55:02 PM  

bingethinker: Shaggy_C: Yeah, not sure why we're talking about DRM. When you buy content on a platform it's generally pretty clear that your access to said content is only available through that platform (thinking of the likes of Steam, but applies to ITunes and suchlike too.)

The issue here is that you 'buy' something and then later they take it off of the store and make it unavailable to you. "Hey, I paid $50 for the Rolling Stones Box Set, now Rolling Stones is blocking Apple Music from hosting their music so I can't listen any more!" That's definitely a huge risk when purchasing a licence for something dependent on platform and I can see there being a case for a full refund. When you buy it, you are indeed assuming that you will own the rights to it indefinitely.

The lawsuit seems weird though; this guy is suing because they 'might' pull content in the future? Seems like you would have to prove actual damages rather than use the courts to pre-emptively rectify some potential, unknown damage.

This lawsuit, like the headline, is aimed at creating bad publicity for Apple.


They do a pretty good job of that themselves.
 
2021-04-23 1:09:34 PM  

Linux_Yes: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Librem 5:  someone called??


I'd say you should bottle your own farts to smell later, but you refuse to use anything closed so it would be pointless.

Like your post.
 
2021-04-23 1:28:19 PM  

FrancoFile: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.


a) Apple arguably has more market power now than the content providers and can dictate terms.

b) If they fail to do that, then the B2B terms need to flow down to the B2C level.  Don't sell me something that you aren't legally able to sell.  Come up with a new word if you need to.


All it takes is for the content providers to band together and crApple is SOL for content. Then all they will have is ripping off other companies' physical products, like their newest rip-off of Tile.

/so edgy, so creative, such forward thinking
 
2021-04-23 1:55:18 PM  

AthensBoy: Linux_Yes: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Librem 5:  someone called??

I'd say you should bottle your own farts to smell later, but you refuse to use anything closed so it would be pointless.

Like your post.


Transparent code is more secure than non transparent.

Never mind the non disclosure agreements that prevent security holes from being broadcast to the public to alert them
 
2021-04-23 2:31:11 PM  
And this is why I don't touch iTunes. I organize my music thru MediaMonkey and don't have to worry about anything getting yanked because my music is all local.
 
2021-04-23 3:23:29 PM  
Apple's even worse than that.

I got my first iPhone, and was like "hey cool, a phone AND an iPod!"

So I copied a shiatton of music from my computer to my phone and dumped my little clip-on iPod.

Next time I got on a plane, I wanted to listen...

Nothing.

The bastards had copied the files to their servers, deleted it from my phone, and then was streaming it back to me.

Music I had ripped from CDs myself.  Some of it purchased before Apple fired Jobs the FIRST time.  Ripped myself precisely because a) I don't trust or even like the streaming model, and b) I wanted to support the artist, even if the label takes the biggest cut.

Mother.  F&ckers.  You intentionally forced me into a situation I took specific steps to avoid.

I like Apple engineers.  I detest Apple marketeers.
 
2021-04-23 3:26:38 PM  
before Apple fired Jobs the FIRST time

Oops.  That was unintentional and in no way implies Apple killed Steve Jobs.

Here's your patch:

before Jobs left Apple the FIRST time

/every time Jobs leaves Apple, first their software goes to shiat
//then their hardware
///and he ain't coming back this time
 
2021-04-23 3:27:51 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Copyright terms should only be 14 years long and never apply to music or entertainment media.


smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digitalView Full Size
 
2021-04-23 3:44:24 PM  

Shaggy_C: Yeah, not sure why we're talking about DRM. When you buy content on a platform it's generally pretty clear that your access to said content is only available through that platform (thinking of the likes of Steam, but applies to ITunes and suchlike too.)

The issue here is that you 'buy' something and then later they take it off of the store and make it unavailable to you. "Hey, I paid $50 for the Rolling Stones Box Set, now Rolling Stones is blocking Apple Music from hosting their music so I can't listen any more!" That's definitely a huge risk when purchasing a licence for something dependent on platform and I can see there being a case for a full refund. When you buy it, you are indeed assuming that you will own the rights to it indefinitely.


Counterpoint: If you're buying access only through a single platform, I don't think you can assume you will own the rights to it indefinitely, but rather for, at best, the lifetime of that platform.  Accordingly, I could see a case for a partial refund, with the value deprecated based on how long you've had access to it - full refund for the first 6 months, 90% for the next year, 80% for the following year, etc.

/mind you, cloud access should be significantly cheaper than buying a permanent copy, since you're just paying for that access license rather than ownership
 
2021-04-23 3:49:18 PM  

Psychopusher: Fark you, I paid for a thing, so that thing is mine, end of transaction. If I buy a DVD or BluRay, that DVD or BluRay is mine, period.


That individual copy is, but not the material on it. You have a license to play it, and even back it up, but not redistribute it, put on a public performance of it, prepare derivative works, etc. It's only partially yours.
Yes, you get even less with the cloud access license, but that's not to say that if you buy a hard copy, there are no copyright clauses that still apply.

Sadly, companies have been working hard to alter the century-old Doctrine of First Sale to change the rules for digital distribution, and they've been winning.  That needs to change.  Not necessarily to allow the resale of purchased digital goods the same as it exists for physical goods (I get why that's problematic; digital goods are infinitely replicable by anyone), but at the very least to confer ownership of digital goods to the purchaser the same as if it were a physical good to allow for indefinite use without the seller's ability to revoke access at any time.

If you can come up with a form of DRM that can definitively prevent replication or distribution, but doesn't require the seller to maintain an expensive server (or that shutting down that server impairs use of the item), then you could be a billionaire.
 
2021-04-23 3:51:21 PM  

bughunter: The bastards had copied the files to their servers, deleted it from my phone, and then was streaming it back to me as the checkbox in "settings" said it would.

Mother.  F&ckers.  You intentionally forced me into a situation I took specific nosteps to avoid.


FTFY. It's literally one button.
 
2021-04-23 4:01:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Psychopusher: Fark you, I paid for a thing, so that thing is mine, end of transaction. If I buy a DVD or BluRay, that DVD or BluRay is mine, period.

That individual copy is, but not the material on it. You have a license to play it, and even back it up, but not redistribute it, put on a public performance of it, prepare derivative works, etc. It's only partially yours.
Yes, you get even less with the cloud access license, but that's not to say that if you buy a hard copy, there are no copyright clauses that still apply.

Sadly, companies have been working hard to alter the century-old Doctrine of First Sale to change the rules for digital distribution, and they've been winning.  That needs to change.  Not necessarily to allow the resale of purchased digital goods the same as it exists for physical goods (I get why that's problematic; digital goods are infinitely replicable by anyone), but at the very least to confer ownership of digital goods to the purchaser the same as if it were a physical good to allow for indefinite use without the seller's ability to revoke access at any time.

If you can come up with a form of DRM that can definitively prevent replication or distribution, but doesn't require the seller to maintain an expensive server (or that shutting down that server impairs use of the item), then you could be a billionaire.


Or, as logical people, we could understand that such a thing is not possible. Nothing can ever prevent replication, and nothing can ever prevent distribution.

You can make it harder, which generally also makes it more onerous to use as a legitimate consumer, but you can't prevent it.

It would be easier to convince mega conglomerate media owners to provide a reasonable product and reasonable rates and make it accessible. That is the most profitable thing they could do, but they are more concerned about preventing what they see as misuse, than making it easier and cheap enough to be legit. They could save millions of not hundreds of millions of dollars by not flipping their shiat over anyone who saw it out of the corner of their eye and just selling and distributing their product in an easy to consume way, at high quality.
 
2021-04-23 4:06:42 PM  

Theaetetus: bughunter: The bastards had copied the files to their servers, deleted it from my phone, and then was streaming it back to me as the checkbox in "settings" said it would.

Mother.  F&ckers.  You intentionally forced me into a situation I took specific nosteps to avoid.

FTFY. It's literally one button.


Yes.  I clearly made a series of errors.

a) I assumed the device worked like its predecessor.
2) I failed to discover the checkbox buried three layers deep in a wall of other settings and jargon.
γ ) I assumed that the setting I didn't know was there would default to a state that protected me and my files rather than Apple's newest business model.

It was obviously my fault and I apologize for offending your sense of technological libertarianism.
 
2021-04-23 4:08:07 PM  

Linux_Yes: AthensBoy: Linux_Yes: Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.

Librem 5:  someone called??

I'd say you should bottle your own farts to smell later, but you refuse to use anything closed so it would be pointless.

Like your post.

Transparent code is more secure than non transparent.

Never mind the non disclosure agreements that prevent security holes from being broadcast to the public to alert them


That's not always true. Remember when that Debian maintainer made an oopsie and introduced an OpenSSH bug that went undetected for two years?

To me, FOSS is kind of like Wikipedia. Sure, the big important articles have lots of eyeballs on them, making all the bugs shallow, but for millions of smaller lesser known articles nobody ever looks at the chances of someone who both knows enough about what they're looking at to spot an error and is motivated enough to fix it is small enough that it doesn't matter how transparent it is because the error isn't likely to get caught or fixed in a timely manner.
 
2021-04-23 4:17:02 PM  

Theaetetus: That individual copy is, but not the material on it. You have a license to play it, and even back it up, but not redistribute it, put on a public performance of it, prepare derivative works, etc. It's only partially yours.
Yes, you get even less with the cloud access license, but that's not to say that if you buy a hard copy, there are no copyright clauses that still apply.


That's my point though.  My individual copy is mine. I can watch it whenever I want, I can back it up, I can stick it on a shelf and forget about it for twenty years until I rediscover it one day and say "Damn, I wonder if I still have an old Blu-Ray Player around here."  Nobody's going to barge into my place and take it from me if they decide they don't want me to have it any more, nor will they stop me from selling my copy of the disc.  (Yes, if I keep a backup of it, that's illegal, and I get that.  I'm just talking about the right to own my instance of a thing.) I'm aware that there are copyright clauses that prevent me from selling copies, creating derivative works without permission and licensing (except for parody), or using parts of it for anything (except for critique, analysis, or education).  But I still have rights under the doctrine of first sale, and this doctrine, at least as it pertains to my right to own and keep it and use it for its intended purpose whenever I want, should carry over to the digital domain without fear of the licensor being able to take it away from me at any time.

Theaetetus: If you can come up with a form of DRM that can definitively prevent replication or distribution, but doesn't require the seller to maintain an expensive server (or that shutting down that server impairs use of the item), then you could be a billionaire.


No such animal, nor will there ever be.  If it can be protected, it can be cracked, as it has been since the first piece of software featured a protection mechanism.  I've known and accepted this since I used to write software, even though I'd include some token copy protection that I knew would be cracked.  (It was.)  That's just how things are and will always be.
 
2021-04-23 4:22:19 PM  

Quantumbunny: Theaetetus: Psychopusher: Fark you, I paid for a thing, so that thing is mine, end of transaction. If I buy a DVD or BluRay, that DVD or BluRay is mine, period.

That individual copy is, but not the material on it. You have a license to play it, and even back it up, but not redistribute it, put on a public performance of it, prepare derivative works, etc. It's only partially yours.
Yes, you get even less with the cloud access license, but that's not to say that if you buy a hard copy, there are no copyright clauses that still apply.

Sadly, companies have been working hard to alter the century-old Doctrine of First Sale to change the rules for digital distribution, and they've been winning.  That needs to change.  Not necessarily to allow the resale of purchased digital goods the same as it exists for physical goods (I get why that's problematic; digital goods are infinitely replicable by anyone), but at the very least to confer ownership of digital goods to the purchaser the same as if it were a physical good to allow for indefinite use without the seller's ability to revoke access at any time.

If you can come up with a form of DRM that can definitively prevent replication or distribution, but doesn't require the seller to maintain an expensive server (or that shutting down that server impairs use of the item), then you could be a billionaire.

Or, as logical people, we could understand that such a thing is not possible. Nothing can ever prevent replication, and nothing can ever prevent distribution.


Well, yeah, if it was dirt simple, it wouldn't be worth a billion dollars. Geez.

You can make it harder, which generally also makes it more onerous to use as a legitimate consumer, but you can't prevent it.

It would be easier to convince mega conglomerate media owners to provide a reasonable product and reasonable rates and make it accessible. That is the most profitable thing they could do, but they are more concerned about preventing what they see as misuse, than making it easier and cheap enough to be legit. They could save millions of not hundreds of millions of dollars by not flipping their shiat over anyone who saw it out of the corner of their eye and just selling and distributing their product in an easy to consume way, at high quality.


You say this, but that's literally what Apple did - effectively reducing the price of music to 99 cents per track, compared to the $25 per CD it was at in the early 2000s. They forced that deal down the throats of those mega conglomerate media owners, and made billions of dollars as a result.
So... what's the issue? Well, for some people, that's not good enough and they want free redistribution with no consequences. That's unlikely to happen.
 
2021-04-23 4:28:05 PM  

Psychopusher: But I still have rights under the doctrine of first sale, and this doctrine, at least as it pertains to my right to own and keep it and use it for its intended purpose whenever I want, should carry over to the digital domain without fear of the licensor being able to take it away from me at any time.


Why though? You're not buying the same thing, and you're saving quite a bit of money. According to the Googs, the average price for a Bluray is currently between $15-$30.
Not counting current in-theater movies (which you can't get on Bluray yet anyway), most movies on Apple's store are $5-$20.

It's not a perfect analogy, but you can think of your Bluray purchases as a $5-20 license for viewing the movie, and $10-$25 for a portable and resellable copy with first sale rights. You're paying a premium and getting a premium. Why should the cheaper version be identical?
 
2021-04-23 4:29:09 PM  

Psychopusher: No such animal, nor will there ever be.  If it can be protected, it can be cracked, as it has been since the first piece of software featured a protection mechanism.  I've known and accepted this since I used to write software, even though I'd include some token copy protection that I knew would be cracked.  (It was.)  That's just how things are and will always be.


Have it encrypted with a hash of your bank account number and password. Sure, it can be cracked, but you're not going to voluntarily redistribute it. :D
 
2021-04-23 4:45:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Why though? You're not buying the same thing, and you're saving quite a bit of money. According to the Googs, the average price for a Bluray is currently between $15-$30.
Not counting current in-theater movies (which you can't get on Bluray yet anyway), most movies on Apple's store are $5-$20.

It's not a perfect analogy, but you can think of your Bluray purchases as a $5-20 license for viewing the movie, and $10-$25 for a portable and resellable copy with first sale rights. You're paying a premium and getting a premium. Why should the cheaper version be identical?


The "premium" is for the cost of manufacture and distribution of the media and the packaging it is in.  Digital media is cheaper because it doesn't need any of that.  So no, that analogy doesn't scan.
 
2021-04-23 5:08:47 PM  

Psychopusher: Theaetetus: Why though? You're not buying the same thing, and you're saving quite a bit of money. According to the Googs, the average price for a Bluray is currently between $15-$30.
Not counting current in-theater movies (which you can't get on Bluray yet anyway), most movies on Apple's store are $5-$20.

It's not a perfect analogy, but you can think of your Bluray purchases as a $5-20 license for viewing the movie, and $10-$25 for a portable and resellable copy with first sale rights. You're paying a premium and getting a premium. Why should the cheaper version be identical?

The "premium" is for the cost of manufacture and distribution of the media and the packaging it is in.  Digital media is cheaper because it doesn't need any of that.  So no, that analogy doesn't scan.


Sure, it does. Manufacturing cost for a Bluray disc is about $1-$2, with another $1 for logistics and shipping. The rest of what you're paying for is that additional right.

Look at it this way, would you be willing to buy a Bluray with a $10 discount if it came with a contract saying you agreed never to sell or give away your copy to another person, on penalty of death (or $150k damages, whichever comes first)?
 
2021-04-23 5:42:38 PM  
Apple employee here.

Apple does not kick someone out of the eco system with out some serious shiat going down.

A couple of things.

I have only bought 2 songs and 1 movie from Apple in the last six years.  The music is DRM free and I have them stored in my music library which there is a back up of.

Now they were purchased.  Apple only keeps a copy as courtesy.  As does Amazon, Google, etc.  None of those companies are under any obligation to to make it forever available to download for you.  The expectation is you keep your own copy.

You know why? The owner of the content who allows it to be sold in the stores.  They can pull the content any time.  You do not get a refund because of the expectation you should have kept the copy you downloaded.

The movies and TV shows you purchase from various providers, have DRM. on them because it is a requirement of the motion picture industry. However, if you still own the devices you can still play them without an Apple ID or an Amazon or Google account.

Same think with software.  You can download the installer from whatever respective store and you know, make a copy of the installer just in case.

The only beef I can see is the IOS apps he purchases.  They will still work on the devices but will not be able to receive updates and IOS apps are no longer saved in backups and have to be redownloaded.

I am on the fence with in app purchases because they are generally items that are used right away so it is like my car getting stolen and I want the insurance company to pay for for all the gas I put in it over the years.

This is just not an Apple issue as other content providers follow the same rules.

Apple,Windows, Linux users, in my 30 years of IT generally tend to not make back ups, take precautions, read the fine print, and when they fark up blame everyone else but themselves.

Windows Itunes users are generally the worst.  They get a new machine, don't transfer the library, then a few years later get a new device then go to sync and wonder where all their music is and they have long since trashed the old machine.

Plus, the lawsuit looks like an middle schooler wrote it because there are lot of out and out lies in it.
 
2021-04-23 6:56:52 PM  
In the future no one will own anything.

We will all pay monthly fees for the right to use stuff.
 
2021-04-23 7:11:49 PM  

Theaetetus: Sure, it does. Manufacturing cost for a Bluray disc is about $1-$2, with another $1 for logistics and shipping. The rest of what you're paying for is that additional right.


I don't buy it, and wouldn't agree with it if I did.   If I buy something, it shouldn't matter what format I but it in, the same (or at least, somewhat modified for digital) doctrine of first sale should apply, as it does (or, again, should in some cases) with every physical good you purchase.  I also fully support the right to repair, as well, because again, I paid for it, I should be allowed to use it, and to get it repaired wherever I want if it becomes damaged.

Look at it this way, would you be willing to buy a Bluray with a $10 discount if it came with a contract saying you agreed never to sell or give away your copy to another person, on penalty of death (or $150k damages, whichever comes first)?

No, I wouldn't.  Just as I wouldn't buy a computer component, or a car, or any other physical good for a discount if it game with strings like that attached.  I pay for it, it's mine, and you don't get to put your grubby hands on it for any reason, and I get to use it for as long as it still works, in any (legal) capacity I want.  If I buy a game off GOG.COM, it's mine, free and clear, to back up and install any time, on any compatible machine, anywhere, for any reason, as many times as I want, forever, and neither GOG nor the rights holder(s) get to revoke my license to install and play it, ever.  That's why I support them every chance I get, including paying for games I already own through other services just so I can have a DRM-free copy that nobody can take away from me.  (And yes, that may sound like I'm paying that "premium" you mentioned, but I'm not -- I also buy plenty of games that I don't own on other platforms already and still get them DRM-free.  In fact, oftentimes if a game is released, I'll wait to see if GOG gets it, and buy it there when it comes available, so I don't have to buy it on any other platform.)

Even Valve, via Steam, to some extent, supports that idea, albeit with DRM attached.  They have games on their servers that have been pulled and can no longer be purchased but can still be installed if you have the original disks and they sold it once.  I have an original boxed copy of Prey (the 2006 Human Head/3D Realms game, not Bethesda's completely unrelated 2018 game).  Bethesda pulled it from the Steam store ages ago after they bought Human Head, presumably in anticipation of releasing their unrelated take on the Prey name, but I can still plug in the CD key and install the original 2006 game from Steam's servers.

If I'm giving my money to someone to buy something, be it a physical something or its digital equivalent, I expect it to be mine to keep and use as intended for as long as I want without any fear of some dickbag executive arbitrarily deciding I shouldn't have it any more.
 
2021-04-23 7:52:26 PM  

Psychopusher: I don't buy it, and wouldn't agree with it if I did.   If I buy something, it shouldn't matter what format I but it in, the same (or at least, somewhat modified for digital) doctrine of first sale should apply, as it does (or, again, should in some cases) with every physical good you purchase.


But that's what's for sale. Not something with no limitations.

Look at it this way, would you be willing to buy a Bluray with a $10 discount if it came with a contract saying you agreed never to sell or give away your copy to another person, on penalty of death (or $150k damages, whichever comes first)?

No, I wouldn't.  Just as I wouldn't buy a computer component, or a car, or any other physical good for a discount if it game with strings like that attached.  I pay for it, it's mine, and you don't get to put your grubby hands on it for any reason, and I get to use it for as long as it still works, in any (legal) capacity I want.


That's fine. Buy the Blurays and physical copies and you get exactly what you want. But for those of us who are willing to purchase a discounted license knowing that there are resale limitations, there are online download-only stores. Everyone wins, right? Well, yeah... until you see us getting that discount and start complaining that you want the premium product with the additional rights at the same discount.

Even Valve, via Steam, to some extent, supports that idea, albeit with DRM attached.  They have games on their servers that have been pulled and can no longer be purchased but can still be installed if you have the original disks and they sold it once.

If you have the original disks, just install it. Why add on a layer of DRM that requires access to their servers? Steam is doing that to be nice (and lock you into their platform), but it's not like there's a legal reason why they couldn't stop doing it tomorrow.

If I'm giving my money to someone to buy something, be it a physical something or its digital equivalent, I expect it to be mine to keep and use as intended for as long as I want without any fear of some dickbag executive arbitrarily deciding I shouldn't have it any more.

If I rent a hotel room or a car, I don't expect it to be mine to keep and use as intended for as along as I want. If I purchase a gym membership on a month-to-month basis, I don't think I magically own a gym and can start selling my own memberships. Every time you participate in a sales contract, be it for a physical something or its digital equivalent, there are terms and conditions, sometimes broader and sometimes narrower. Why do you think that in only one specific case - online purchases - you should get to unilaterally rewrite those terms later?
 
2021-04-23 8:15:49 PM  

theflatline: Windows Itunes users are generally the worst.


In all fairness, the Windows version of iTunes is the worst music software so...

/OK - the latest versions are getting better.
 
2021-04-23 9:43:15 PM  
Yeah, if I can't download it and play it offline permanently then you better not use the words 'buy' or 'sell'.

You better be stating in plain language I will be getting a temporary license to access it.

Of course, as I do with most games, if dealing with your distribution method is more of a pain that using the cracked version then I will use the cracked version of games or music I own.
 
2021-04-23 10:08:47 PM  

Psychopusher: This generally only applies to movies, TV shows, and apps (plus DLC).  The music has no DRM so you can just back that up to whatever and have it forever, played in any player or device, something Apple actually fought for more than a decade ago.  (This may have been in part because music sites like eMusic had already negotiated for the ability to sell DRM-free content and Apple just wanted to get in on it, and the music companies seemed to be receptive to the idea.)

Also, this isn't necessarily Apple's doing; they're bound by the licensing agreements they've made with content providers for movies and TV shows, and those industries aren't about to give up DRM even if it kills them.


I had an unlimited emusic account and a T1 connection around 1999 and legally amassed a shiat-tonne of jazz music. There wasn't much in the way of Blue Note Records titles but there were some solid collections.

It was also good for punk and alternative genres. Cramps, Thrill Kill Kult, etc. Eventually emusic put caps on downloads per month but for a year or two I was downloading 24x7.
 
2021-04-23 10:16:48 PM  

dready zim: Yeah, if I can't download it and play it offline permanently then you better not use the words 'buy' or 'sell'.

You better be stating in plain language I will be getting a temporary license to access it.

Of course, as I do with most games, if dealing with your distribution method is more of a pain that using the cracked version then I will use the cracked version of games or music I own.


Music, Mac OS  and software all can be downloaded from the App store and be stored and you always have access to it.

Movies/Music from Amazon, Apple, and Google have DRM, and even if you do not have access to the app store anymore, if you kept a back up, you can still play them.

There is no expectation that the seller who sold you them will allow you to keep re-downloading it forever.

Like I posted previously if the original owner of the content designs to pull it from the respective marketplace, it is your fault for not keeping a copy.
 
2021-04-23 10:33:13 PM  

Theaetetus: But that's what's for sale. Not something with no limitations.


What's for sale is the same thing that is available in a physical version; the only difference is the lack of packaging; you're getting less, but also paying less.  Again, I do not buy that, just because it is in a digital format, it make the product any different.  A movie on a physical BluRay has the same legal limitations as the same movie from a digital storefront in the sense that you can't sell copies, you can't publicly broadcast it, etc.  Fair enough.  Yet the digital version has extra strings that basically state that you don't actually own what you just ostensibly bought.

Theaetetus: That's fine. Buy the Blurays and physical copies and you get exactly what you want. But for those of us who are willing to purchase a discounted license knowing that there are resale limitations, there are online download-only stores. Everyone wins, right? Well, yeah... until you see us getting that discount and start complaining that you want the premium product with the additional rights at the same discount.


Then why don't they offer a  "premium" digital version that doesn't have that stipulation and charge more for it?  The answer is simple: because they can get away with it.  They know they can't waltz into your home and take your physical media when they decide it's time for you to stop owning it, but they can do that with a digital copy.  And that isn't because this rule has always been in place; this rule is new -- or rather, it's an attempt to redefine the meaning of the existing rules using weaselly language.  I don't even care about the resale limitations when it comes to movies, music, or software, it's the idea that the service provider, or the rights holder(s) can arbitrarily decide to take what I paid for away from me for any reason, at any time.  That is some grade A bullshiat.

Theaetetus: If you have the original disks, just install it. Why add on a layer of DRM that requires access to their servers? Steam is doing that to be nice (and lock you into their platform), but it's not like there's a legal reason why they couldn't stop doing it tomorrow.


If Steam didn't offer that service, then I would.  But using that particular service is a lot more convenient because I don't have to have the disc in a drive to validate the DRM.  I don't even have an optical drive in my PC any more, haven't for years; I use an external on the rare occasions it's needed.  And software is where this issue becomes the most galling; most games aren't even released on physical media any more, so we don't even have the option of your "premium" version any more save for bastions of good sense like GOG.

Theaetetus: If I rent a hotel room or a car, I don't expect it to be mine to keep and use as intended for as along as I want. If I purchase a gym membership on a month-to-month basis, I don't think I magically own a gym and can start selling my own memberships.


Don't be ridiculous.  That's not even remotely the same thing and you know it.  Those are pure services; there is no expectation of any level of ownership in any of these cases and never has been.

Theaetetus: Every time you participate in a sales contract, be it for a physical something or its digital equivalent, there are terms and conditions, sometimes broader and sometimes narrower. Why do you think that in only one specific case - online purchases - you should get to unilaterally rewrite those terms later?


Because those online sales are for a product that exists as a physical product as well, identical in every meaningful way except the physical version has physical media and packaging, but different standards are being applied to the digital version purely because it's a digital version.  If, as you say, I am paying a premium for the physical version not just because of the expense of the packaging and medium, but for the right to own and keep it and install it whenever I want -- if that was the official reason, then the same "premium" version would exist in digital form too for convenience's sake for a higher cost.  But it doesn't.  And it doesn't because the rights holders don't like that they can't take a physical version away from you if they decide it should be so.  Turning software, or movies, or TV shows, or software, into a virtual service they and they alone control is the dream for the rights holders because they have all the power and you have none.

And, I say again, it's utter bullshiat.
 
2021-04-23 10:35:54 PM  

ippolit: I had an unlimited emusic account and a T1 connection around 1999 and legally amassed a shiat-tonne of jazz music. There wasn't much in the way of Blue Note Records titles but there were some solid collections.

It was also good for punk and alternative genres. Cramps, Thrill Kill Kult, etc. Eventually emusic put caps on downloads per month but for a year or two I was downloading 24x7.


I liked eMusic when I had it.  25 free downloads for signing up and 10 songs every month for your, what was it, $7 a month or something?  That was a heck of a deal, and even the prices for songs and albums was good.  I discovered a lot of great music I'd never heard of before and never would have discovered without them.  But yeah, they tightened the purse strings and it became a lot more restrictive.  Still, it was great while it lasted.
 
2021-04-24 6:34:23 AM  

theflatline: dready zim: Yeah, if I can't download it and play it offline permanently then you better not use the words 'buy' or 'sell'.

You better be stating in plain language I will be getting a temporary license to access it.

Of course, as I do with most games, if dealing with your distribution method is more of a pain that using the cracked version then I will use the cracked version of games or music I own.

Music, Mac OS  and software all can be downloaded from the App store and be stored and you always have access to it.

Movies/Music from Amazon, Apple, and Google have DRM, and even if you do not have access to the app store anymore, if you kept a back up, you can still play them.

There is no expectation that the seller who sold you them will allow you to keep re-downloading it forever.

Like I posted previously if the original owner of the content designs to pull it from the respective marketplace, it is your fault for not keeping a copy.


Absolutely, but if my copy is lost or destroyed then IMO I ethically have the right to replace it through other means and this should be legal via fair use.
 
2021-04-24 9:22:32 AM  

bughunter: Apple's even worse than that.

I got my first iPhone, and was like "hey cool, a phone AND an iPod!"

So I copied a shiatton of music from my computer to my phone and dumped my little clip-on iPod.

Next time I got on a plane, I wanted to listen...

Nothing.

The bastards had copied the files to their servers, deleted it from my phone, and then was streaming it back to me.

Music I had ripped from CDs myself.  Some of it purchased before Apple fired Jobs the FIRST time.  Ripped myself precisely because a) I don't trust or even like the streaming model, and b) I wanted to support the artist, even if the label takes the biggest cut.

Mother.  F&ckers.  You intentionally forced me into a situation I took specific steps to avoid.

I like Apple engineers.  I detest Apple marketeers.


Apple values one thing: sending profits to their brass and sit at home stock owners.
 
2021-04-24 9:23:13 AM  

bughunter: Apple's even worse than that.

I got my first iPhone, and was like "hey cool, a phone AND an iPod!"

So I copied a shiatton of music from my computer to my phone and dumped my little clip-on iPod.

Next time I got on a plane, I wanted to listen...

Nothing.

The bastards had copied the files to their servers, deleted it from my phone, and then was streaming it back to me.

Music I had ripped from CDs myself.  Some of it purchased before Apple fired Jobs the FIRST time.  Ripped myself precisely because a) I don't trust or even like the streaming model, and b) I wanted to support the artist, even if the label takes the biggest cut.

Mother.  F&ckers.  You intentionally forced me into a situation I took specific steps to avoid.

I like Apple engineers.  I detest Apple marketeers.


Open Source software is calling......
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.