4 ms·

HN has an illogical aversion to anything DRM. This particular case is harmful to anyone producing digital good (apps, music, movies, blogs, etc). Let's underst

CaptSpify 9y ago
I'd say the logical disconnect is the idea that we should charge for digital goods after they are already made. The costs to duplicate digital goods are so low that they should be treated as free.
- mankash666 9y ago
  No - there's ZERO logic in selling items as a function of the cost of creation or distribution. Pricing has everything to do with the VALUE it offers customers versus the cost that it takes to create it!!
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    That's an outdated way of thinking about goods and services, and it's why things like piracy are doing so well. Good luck with that.
    - mankash666 9y ago
      Another logical fallacy! Piracy is doing so damn well because the cost and convenience of pirating digital goods is effectively zero. Not because "offering value" is going out of style!
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Yelling “logical fallacy” at people and then expressing your opinion isn’t as effective a rhetorical device as you seem to think.
        mankash666 9y ago
        Who's yelling? Are you shadow banning the use of the term "logical fallacy"? Who made you the decorum doctor of HN comments. I suggest you make a point other than "I dislike your style"
        IntronExon 9y ago
        I did make my point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16441154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16441154 Then I commented on your style, and your response is a bit mad. If your goal is to ensure that people simply downvote and move on, then keep it up, I can’t and won’t stop you. If you’re really trying to discuss issues with people you might want to work on your style.
        mankash666 9y ago
        I could care less about votes and karma. If it takes sugar coating my natural style to be heard, I'd rather pass. Additionally, anyone worth their salt will engage with someone making a valid point, regardless of style. If you can't handle styles that aren't in your perceived silo of propriety, maybe the problem lies with you, because the world is FULL of diverse styles I've had plenty of my comments up-voted despite my "style". If you don't like my style, walk away, or down-vote. Dishing out free advice is presumptuous, pompous, self-aggrandizing, etc.. I DON'T seek your approval or that of anyone, as simple as that. Lastly, I dislike, nay truly abhor your style. But I didn't preach you on it. Nor did it figure in my points. Stay on topic, don't make things personal. Cheers!
IntronExon 9y ago
HN has an illogical aversion to anything DRM. This particular case is harmful to anyone producing digital good (apps, music, movies, blogs, etc). Let's understand this really damaging verdict by using an app as an example. 1. Disney puts out an app that can either be bought as a disk at Walmart or as a download on the app store 2. A third party app store that doesn't have a re-seller/partner agreement with Disney buys a disk, and claims that the legal purchase of the disk now entitles it to re-distribute the app as it deems fit, including selling DIGITAL copies of the app on it's own app store. Does this seem logical or fair to you guys? Totally. They did what anyone can do, at scale, and calling them “third party App Store” really changes nothing. They have no agreement with Disney and so pay retail for their product and don’t get pre-releases. Fair. The logical fallacy here is in equating the third-party app store to a regular end-user. Additionally, the third-party app store selling the app digitally is equivalent to Spotify streaming content it hasn't licensed under the guise of owning CDs of the said content. Not even a little. It would be like Spotify buying physical media and selling one copy of it digitally to one person per purchase. This is wrong and dangerous for the digital economy. If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!! Yep. Next you’ll tell me that mix tapes and bootlegs were killing physical media. And lest you forget, piracy is always out there waiting for people like you to put ineffective hurdles in front of fair use.
dragonwriter 9y ago
That's not an accurate description of the case. Disney sells packages containing a physical disk and a single-user download code. Redbox is purchasing the packages, using the disks in its rental operation, and selling the download codes that it is not otherwise using. They aren't selling anything that wasn't in the package they bought (unlike your hypothetical) and isn't selling additional copies of anything. They are violating language on the packaging, in splitting the items, but the judge has found the limitations attempted to be imposed by that language to be illegal. > If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!! No, this decision turns entirely on the doctrine of first sale with regard to the physical product Disney is selling. While someone might argue that a first-sale principle should apply to digital products on similar terms with physical ones, that's not either the current law or the decision in this case.

CaptSpify 9y ago

I'd say the logical disconnect is the idea that we should charge for digital goods after they are already made. The costs to duplicate digital goods are so low that they should be treated as free.

mankash666 9y ago
No - there's ZERO logic in selling items as a function of the cost of creation or distribution. Pricing has everything to do with the VALUE it offers customers versus the cost that it takes to create it!!
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  That's an outdated way of thinking about goods and services, and it's why things like piracy are doing so well. Good luck with that.
  - mankash666 9y ago
    Another logical fallacy! Piracy is doing so damn well because the cost and convenience of pirating digital goods is effectively zero. Not because "offering value" is going out of style!
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Yelling “logical fallacy” at people and then expressing your opinion isn’t as effective a rhetorical device as you seem to think.
      - mankash666 9y ago
        Who's yelling? Are you shadow banning the use of the term "logical fallacy"? Who made you the decorum doctor of HN comments. I suggest you make a point other than "I dislike your style"
        IntronExon 9y ago
        I did make my point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16441154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16441154 Then I commented on your style, and your response is a bit mad. If your goal is to ensure that people simply downvote and move on, then keep it up, I can’t and won’t stop you. If you’re really trying to discuss issues with people you might want to work on your style.
        mankash666 9y ago
        I could care less about votes and karma. If it takes sugar coating my natural style to be heard, I'd rather pass. Additionally, anyone worth their salt will engage with someone making a valid point, regardless of style. If you can't handle styles that aren't in your perceived silo of propriety, maybe the problem lies with you, because the world is FULL of diverse styles I've had plenty of my comments up-voted despite my "style". If you don't like my style, walk away, or down-vote. Dishing out free advice is presumptuous, pompous, self-aggrandizing, etc.. I DON'T seek your approval or that of anyone, as simple as that. Lastly, I dislike, nay truly abhor your style. But I didn't preach you on it. Nor did it figure in my points. Stay on topic, don't make things personal. Cheers!

IntronExon 9y ago

HN has an illogical aversion to anything DRM. This particular case is harmful to anyone producing digital good (apps, music, movies, blogs, etc). Let's understand this really damaging verdict by using an app as an example. 1. Disney puts out an app that can either be bought as a disk at Walmart or as a download on the app store 2. A third party app store that doesn't have a re-seller/partner agreement with Disney buys a disk, and claims that the legal purchase of the disk now entitles it to re-distribute the app as it deems fit, including selling DIGITAL copies of the app on it's own app store. Does this seem logical or fair to you guys? Totally. They did what anyone can do, at scale, and calling them “third party App Store” really changes nothing. They have no agreement with Disney and so pay retail for their product and don’t get pre-releases. Fair. The logical fallacy here is in equating the third-party app store to a regular end-user. Additionally, the third-party app store selling the app digitally is equivalent to Spotify streaming content it hasn't licensed under the guise of owning CDs of the said content. Not even a little. It would be like Spotify buying physical media and selling one copy of it digitally to one person per purchase. This is wrong and dangerous for the digital economy. If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!! Yep. Next you’ll tell me that mix tapes and bootlegs were killing physical media. And lest you forget, piracy is always out there waiting for people like you to put ineffective hurdles in front of fair use.

dragonwriter 9y ago

That's not an accurate description of the case. Disney sells packages containing a physical disk and a single-user download code. Redbox is purchasing the packages, using the disks in its rental operation, and selling the download codes that it is not otherwise using. They aren't selling anything that wasn't in the package they bought (unlike your hypothetical) and isn't selling additional copies of anything. They are violating language on the packaging, in splitting the items, but the judge has found the limitations attempted to be imposed by that language to be illegal. > If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!! No, this decision turns entirely on the doctrine of first sale with regard to the physical product Disney is selling. While someone might argue that a first-sale principle should apply to digital products on similar terms with physical ones, that's not either the current law or the decision in this case.