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 understa

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.