8 ms·
>But in a Tuesday ruling, US District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied the studio’s request for an injunction, arguing that the warning that “Codes are not for sa
by Groxx 9y ago
>But in a Tuesday ruling, US District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied the studio’s request for an injunction, arguing that the warning that “Codes are not for sale or transfer” on the DVD and Blu-ray packaging did not constitute a binding contract. Furthermore, he wrote that the licensing agreements that Disney utilizes on the Movies Anywhere and RedeemDigitalMovie websites improperly forced consumers to give up some of their basic ownership rights.
Well now. That's quite a nice result. I wonder how well this will extend into other "basic ownership rights" in other digital fields.
- stryk 9y agoCould this have positive ripple effects into the right to repair as well? that would be nice
- zakk 9y agoI think that’s a lost cause, sadly. The manufacturer can and will make the device more and more difficult to tear apart, and less modular. This can partly be a design choice, but also affects the possibility of repairing... Still, I am not a lawyer but I don’t see how a judge could enforce internal design choices...
- jacobush 9y agoStill, it's one thing to make a device hard to repair - it's another to bring state enforced penalties against people who decide to nevertheless tinker.
- rangibaby 9y ago> The manufacturer can and will make the device more and more difficult to tear apart The company built the thing. There are tools, parts, and instructions that tell someone how to put it together. There are also tools, parts, and instructions that tell someone how to take it apart. It may require special tools and parts, but for any mass-market item it won't be difficult with the right tools and the knowledge of how to do it. The reason for this is that the company will lose more money by making it difficult to repair for themselves than they will ever lose to a DIY repairman. My solution for DIY repairs: - Official, real service manual made available. If you allow the company to provide a "monkey" version they certainly will. - All neccesary parts and tools available at cost, or the cost of their generic equivalent in case of things like proprietary screwdrivers etc.
- Pica_soO 9y agoThere are also tools, parts, and instructions that tell someone how to take it apart. >Do not try to repair a faulty device. Replace it with a new one in which you transfer the customers data. The device is filled with epoxy glue- disassembly equals destruction.
- rangibaby 9y agoand what device is expensive enough for me to want to fix instead of buying a new one, but cheap enough for the manufacturer to just throw out?
- michaelt 9y agoImagine BMW can make electronic engine control units for $10 each, and the spare part market will bear them charging $500 for them, so they do charge that much. When I repair it saves me $500 but when the manufacturer repairs it only saves them $10.
- roblabla 9y agoLook at the surface pro 1. Fully unrepairable.
- PeterisP 9y agoWhat do you mean by "cheap enough for the manufacturer to just throw out"? The manufacturer generally has no need to fix the devices after the warranty period, they're not necessarily in the repair business. If the devices are designed not to be fixable and need to be replaced then you throw it out and buy a new one from them, earning them more profit than the repair would have. If their warranty defect rate is low enough, they have no need to be able to repair them themselves.
- Buge 9y agoThere are 3 possibilities for repairing: 1. The government makes a law saying companies have to let you repair. 2. No laws, companies can make it hard to repair, and you can try to repair. 3. The government makes it illegal to repair (because of DRM). This is the current situation. It would be nice to go from 3 to 2.
- dingo_bat 9y ago0. The government makes a law saying companies have to sell spare parts at reasonable prices.
- chii 9y agohow does one work out what 'reasonable' mean? The farming tractor repairs are 'reasonably' priced at the moment (according to the company selling it).
- rangibaby 9y agoFind out how much the company pays for that repair when they do an in-warranty replacement
- stctgion 9y agoA price such that if you bought the entire product from their spares catalogue that the total would equal the list price of the full product.
- dingo_bat 9y agoI'd be ok with 20% variation too.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoIt's going to be much cheaper to administer the sale of a single vehicle over the individual sale of each part. I'd expect it to cost maybe twice as much? Currently I'm looking for a toothed belt for a bread-maker - best price I can find is a quarter of the cost of a new bread-maker (15€ delivered), that seems a bit ridiculous to me. The belt was in crumbs, locked behind security screws. How many functional devices have been dumped for want of a simple belt replacement I wonder.
- opencl 9y agoThose ridiculous "warranty void if sticker removed" stickers have been illegal in the US for decades but companies continue to use them because the vast majority of consumers are not familiar with warranty law, and even if they are nobody is going to bother suing over a warranty claim on sub-$1000 hardware. Seems very similar to this “Codes are not for sale or transfer” thing.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Those ridiculous "warranty void if sticker removed" stickers have been illegal in the US for decades No, they've just had no legal effect. They aren't illegal; that would mean merely placing them on a product would incur some civil or criminal liability for the illegal act.
- bluGill 9y agoThey do have one legal effect: if the sticker is broken/removed the company has proof that you tried something. Legally they still have to prove your actions did damage, but it eliminates the "but I didn't do anything" defense.
- joombaga 9y agoCouldn't I just say "Your honor, I always remove those stickers immediately upon purchase of any electronic product." Removal of the sticker doesn't seem like proof of anything.
- dragonwriter 9y agoProof in a civil case is by preponderance of the evidence; basically, whatever seems more likely based on the totalkry of the evidence. It doesn't require on one piece of evidence in isolation, or even the totality of the evidence, only permitting one possible interpretation.
- opencl 9y agoYes, I should have been slightly more specific. The presence of the sticker is by itself technically not illegal. The illegal part is the practice of refusing warranty service for breaking the sticker.
- HenryBemis 9y agoIt is always nice to see that someone "sticks it to the man". Of course Justice will be served one direction or another. It is good to see though that the giants cannot bully the little ones and the plane is somewhat levelled, even if this one is a short-lived victory.
- karpodiem 9y agoI have a feeling that they will force the code to be 'paired' to an Disney account which can only be accessed through e-mail/password. Yes, you can create a burner e-mail for this, but you get the point.
- CameronBanga 9y agoI believe this is how it works currently, the only issue is whether or not RedBox can resell the codes they purchase. But to use the code, you need a Disney Anywhere account.
- jimktrains2 9y agoI wonder how this affects textbooks that require codes to access online content required for the course.
- anamexis 9y agoI don't think it does. The issue at hand here seems to be Redbox selling the access codes separately from the DVDs, whereas Disney wants them to be bundled together. I don't think people buying a new textbook and reselling the bundled access code is a big concern for the publishers - the online content is supplemental to, not duplicative of, the textbook content. Access codes are really what publishers are banking on for lock-in, and they will happily sell students one sans textbook. It ensures the publisher gets a piece of the pie, regardless of the used and rental markets, or piracy.
- calvano915 9y agoSometimes the access codes do provide e-text, which in this case would then be providing access to someone else (the buyer) other than who originally paid for the hard text (the seller, who is taking a "profit" of sorts). Publishers do typically restrict the access to only the semester the student (the seller) is in that class, however, so it's just temporary access for the buyer.
- ng-user 9y agoOr food products that contain a label "Not for resale"... I know a lot of Costco products have this because they sell large quantities, but how is that actually enforced?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I wonder how well this will extend into other "basic ownership rights" in other digital fields. It won't, because this is almost entirely about the right of first sale, a doctrine of basic ownership rights in physical items embodying a copyright-protected work. While slips of paper with digital download codes are involved and disks with digital content are involved, it's not really about “digital fields” but physical goods.