4 ms·

Because: 1. Hammers cannot be trivially cloned and mass ditributed digitally for free 2. Every hammer is the same, while every new digital creation (not copy)

Because: 1. Hammers cannot be trivially cloned and mass ditributed digitally for free 2. Every hammer is the same, while every new digital creation (not copy) is possibly the blood , sweat & tears of hundreds of people whose sole source of living is the creation of digital content. HN has an aversion to DRM & paying for soft goods. I'm assuming you're a software developer. How would you like your creation to be ruthlessly copied and mass distributed, killing the potential revenues it would have brought you, and in extreme cases driving you out of business?

criddell 9y ago
The Redbox thing isn't about copyright infringement as far as I can tell. That's basically what the judge said, right? If I understand it, Redbox was selling unused licenses rather than infringing copies. You're right though that HN does have an aversion to DRM. How many movies has it successfully kept off of pirate sites?
- mankash666 9y ago
  Did you read the article. It's very much about copyright, and I suspect this will get appealed. In my opinion, the courts have this wrong on 2 fronts: 1. Redbox != Regular end customer, especially when the good in question contains DRM-ed digital content 2. Redbox doesn't have the authority to sell digital content they haven't produced, just like an iTunes user doesn't have the right to sell an MP3 purchased off iTunes.
  - criddell 9y ago
    It will get appealed for sure. I think Redbox has a chance here because they aren't selling digital content. They are selling a code. That digital content is transferred by Disney to the purchaser and Redbox is never in the middle.
  - elpool2 9y ago
    An iTunes user can't sell a purchased MP3 because that would create a copy which would violate the author's copyright. In the redbox case no such copying actually occurred. At worst they've only violated Disney's terms of use.
  - grahamburger 9y ago
    Redbox is not selling digital content they are selling a piece of paper that they legally purchased. This is not at all inconsistent or really comparable to not being able to resell a song that was purchased on iTunes. It's maybe similar to being able to resell an iTunes gift card that came along with the purchase of another item, which would pretty clearly be acceptable. DRM really isn't involved in any way here - the existence (or lack) of DRM would not change this situation in any way at all.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Redbox != Regular end customer Nothing in the decision rests on Redbox being a “regular end consumer”; it rests of first-sale, a legal doctrine which generally stands in direct opposition to the idea of “end consumer” as a role to which a seller can restrict goods. > Redbox doesn't have the authority to sell digital content they haven't produced The first sale doctrine gives them the right to disassemble and resell the physical items in the box they purchase, which is what they are doing. Even Disney isn't arguing that Redbox is illegally selling digital product or violating copyright directly, instead they are claiming that Redbox is contributing to infringement by the end purchasers who are violating the copyright license by using a download code without owning the disk, and that Redbox is violating a purchase contract with Disney entered into by the act of purchasing the package at retail that prohibits separating the physical components notwithstanding the right of first sale. The judge here upheld the right of first sale against that assault and also stated that the license terms Disney is asserting that end purchasers would violate are themselves an abuse of copyright, because they would prevent the exercise of the right of first sale.
CaptSpify 9y ago
> HN has an aversion to DRM & paying for soft goods. I'm assuming you're a software developer. How would you like your creation to be ruthlessly copied and mass distributed, killing the potential revenues it would have brought you, and in extreme cases driving you out of business? As an open source guy: I would fucking love it. Just because our economic system doesn't match reality doesn't mean we need to try and patch reality to fit. It means we need to adjust our economic system.

criddell 9y ago

The Redbox thing isn't about copyright infringement as far as I can tell. That's basically what the judge said, right? If I understand it, Redbox was selling unused licenses rather than infringing copies. You're right though that HN does have an aversion to DRM. How many movies has it successfully kept off of pirate sites?

mankash666 9y ago
Did you read the article. It's very much about copyright, and I suspect this will get appealed. In my opinion, the courts have this wrong on 2 fronts: 1. Redbox != Regular end customer, especially when the good in question contains DRM-ed digital content 2. Redbox doesn't have the authority to sell digital content they haven't produced, just like an iTunes user doesn't have the right to sell an MP3 purchased off iTunes.
- criddell 9y ago
  It will get appealed for sure. I think Redbox has a chance here because they aren't selling digital content. They are selling a code. That digital content is transferred by Disney to the purchaser and Redbox is never in the middle.
- elpool2 9y ago
  An iTunes user can't sell a purchased MP3 because that would create a copy which would violate the author's copyright. In the redbox case no such copying actually occurred. At worst they've only violated Disney's terms of use.
- grahamburger 9y ago
  Redbox is not selling digital content they are selling a piece of paper that they legally purchased. This is not at all inconsistent or really comparable to not being able to resell a song that was purchased on iTunes. It's maybe similar to being able to resell an iTunes gift card that came along with the purchase of another item, which would pretty clearly be acceptable. DRM really isn't involved in any way here - the existence (or lack) of DRM would not change this situation in any way at all.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Redbox != Regular end customer Nothing in the decision rests on Redbox being a “regular end consumer”; it rests of first-sale, a legal doctrine which generally stands in direct opposition to the idea of “end consumer” as a role to which a seller can restrict goods. > Redbox doesn't have the authority to sell digital content they haven't produced The first sale doctrine gives them the right to disassemble and resell the physical items in the box they purchase, which is what they are doing. Even Disney isn't arguing that Redbox is illegally selling digital product or violating copyright directly, instead they are claiming that Redbox is contributing to infringement by the end purchasers who are violating the copyright license by using a download code without owning the disk, and that Redbox is violating a purchase contract with Disney entered into by the act of purchasing the package at retail that prohibits separating the physical components notwithstanding the right of first sale. The judge here upheld the right of first sale against that assault and also stated that the license terms Disney is asserting that end purchasers would violate are themselves an abuse of copyright, because they would prevent the exercise of the right of first sale.

CaptSpify 9y ago

> HN has an aversion to DRM & paying for soft goods. I'm assuming you're a software developer. How would you like your creation to be ruthlessly copied and mass distributed, killing the potential revenues it would have brought you, and in extreme cases driving you out of business? As an open source guy: I would fucking love it. Just because our economic system doesn't match reality doesn't mean we need to try and patch reality to fit. It means we need to adjust our economic system.