7 ms·

1. How much cost is really involved in keeping up the DRM server in maintenance mode on Azure? 2. Maybe this will give the EFF enough case study to argue (succ

1. How much cost is really involved in keeping up the DRM server in maintenance mode on Azure? 2. Maybe this will give the EFF enough case study to argue (successfully, finally) that the DMCA allows corporations to create rules that violate other existing laws such as the right of first sale.

ChrisLomont 7y ago
The right sale doctrine doesn’t apply to products like these; these are licenses to use. If they were first sale doctrine products, you could sell your goods on secondary markets, which you cannot.
- arghwhat 7y ago
  There should be some crackdown on selling licenses over products. It is abused to absurd extends.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Indeed. Some stores sell this license above market rate as well compared to an actual purchase of a good. Infuriating.
- inlined 7y ago
  That’s a descriptive argument (describing what is, based on technicalities). I’m making a proscriptive argument about what should be. When DRM replaces an entire market, it’s reasonable for customers to have similar expectations. Eg when I die, I should be able to bequeath my library.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Has that been decided by the courts for the various digital product types (software, books, music, videos, etc.)?
- cortesoft 7y ago
  So does the first sale doctrine not have any teeth at all? What is to stop companies from throwing a license on everything they sell, making the first sale doctrine meaningless? Could a bookseller add a license to a physical book, and suddenly you can't sell it or lend it out?
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    > "Could a bookseller add a license to a physical book, and suddenly you can't sell it or lend it out? " Probably. I mean, they're already selling physical items laden with DRM (DVD/bluray), presumably in those cases they are selling you "a license to watch the disk." The ability to restrict first sale of DRM'd movies is probably on their TODO list I'd wager, or their list of greatest regrets. Incidentally, years ago, they did manage to invent a self-destructing DVD obsensibly for rental-without-return purposes. Technology Connections has a good video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccneE_gkSAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccneE_gkSAs
    - zaroth 7y ago
      The actual answer appears to be that you can sell add-on digital content which is licensed only for sale with the physical item, and that’s OK. But you cannot add license terms to the physical book itself, the book can be resold freely. That’s recently been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        Hypothetically if they had the technology to create a paperback book that self-destructs when anybody but you opens it, would that business model be illegal? As far as I know, SCOTUS said companies can't use the legal system to prevent resale of their books. But did they say that technical solutions are also banned?
        zaroth 7y ago
        If you buy a product which is designed for a single use, knowing that it’s a single use product, and obviously this is something that would have to fail gracefully and safely, I really don’t see a problem with that. Obviously companies (and therefore customers) should be paying for the ecological impact of their waste product.
- dabockster 7y ago
  Forget sale doctrines, DRM effectively prevents a consumer from leaving to a competing service. It seems to me to be more of a matter of antitrust law since it gives a company way too much control over how a consumer, well, consumes.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    There is one partial exception - digital movies. Movies Anywhere is owned by Disney but is a partnership with four other studios. You can buy a movie from iTunes, Amazon Prime, Google Play, or Vudu and get credit for purchasing it from other stores.
- deogeo 7y ago
  But did they use the word 'buy' in their online store? Did they list the item as 'book title' instead of 'book title license'? I'm sure there's a "licensed, not sold" line buried somewhere in the EULA, but why would that take precedence over the prominently-displayed "buy"? Is the "buy" a lie? If so, how is a consumer supposed to know which statements are lies and which are not? For all they know, the EULA could be the lying one. This is all from a US point of view - Europe has disallowed using such shenanigans to rob consumers of their rights: https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3134867/eu-court-of-justice-used-software-download-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3134867/eu-court-of-justic...
  - inlined 7y ago
    I keep hearing complaints in the US that EU regulations strangle companies, but as a consumer I’m wildly envious. When I vaped, I tried to get a new disposable part in the EU. I had to upgrade my whole mod because the parts on the market in the US were illegal in the EU because they leaked. The US is sold products that force you to buy more “juice” and make messes. And in the EU, the juice flavors must each pass tests to show they’re not harmful. In the US that’s considered an undue burden.
    - xondono 7y ago
      Conversely, the US is far more strict with diesel emissions, while the EU allows for a LOT more loopholes to favor certain companies that prop up certain economies..
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        That's a difference in priority between particulate emissions and CO2 emissions, right? With one favoring a relative reduction in soot and the other favoring a relative reduction in CO2. That's my understanding anyway, I'm not a car guy.
        namibj 7y ago
        Not soot. Nitrogen oxides (NOx). Soot is easily taken care of and tires create a lot or particulate emissions from road travel.
- olliej 7y ago
  The button says buy and purchase. Not rent or lease. If it was honest and said that I suspect fewer people would buy them. Sorry, license them.
  - techslave 7y ago
    but you are buying. a license.
    - thejenk 7y ago
      The argument is that if you are buying a licence, the retailer is obligated to tell you you're buying a licence. Current advertising, shopping, and checkout flows instead communicate that you are buying an eBook.
toast0 7y ago
For 2, it's unlikely. When pushed on DRM shutdowns and loss of use, surviving businesses usually refund purchases. It's going to be really tough to show harm, when the purchase has been refunded (or offered to be refuneded).
- guitarbill 7y ago
  presumably they do this to avoid getting sued and having a precedent set though?
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  From past shutdowns, I've never seen anything that past purchases are refunded, such as when Microsoft killed off Plays4Sure (ironically).
- lsc 7y ago
  "Microsoft will refund customers in full for what they paid, plus an extra $25 if they made annotations or mark-ups." that... I mean, if they automatically refund everyone? that sounds... really pretty good? I mean, I've got a few grand into my kindle books. I bet I have more than a grand in obsolete technical books alone. If the kindle was no longer the dominant platform (or rather, if there was another platform with more books) if you wanted to pay me several thousand dollars to re-buy my library on a different platform? Sure, I'd take that deal. (I mean, if it's not an automatic refund, if it's instead the more usual "we'll refund if you remember to call us between this time and that time, and if you are willing to argue for hours, that is a very different sort of thing, of course. I just think you can make the argument that we should be very forgiving of businesses if they want to unwind in a way that causes them to refund every penny of revenue they ever acquired.)
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    if you wanted to pay me several thousand dollars to re-buy my library on a different platform? Sure, I'd take that deal And what do you do when the media you want isn't available on another platform? In the recent article about the burning of the Universal music archive we learned that less than 11% of recorded music is available online. Anyone who subscribes to a streaming service knows content comes and goes. The only way to keep the things you buy is to actually own them. Not continually rent them from one online service after another.

ChrisLomont 7y ago

The right sale doctrine doesn’t apply to products like these; these are licenses to use. If they were first sale doctrine products, you could sell your goods on secondary markets, which you cannot.

arghwhat 7y ago
There should be some crackdown on selling licenses over products. It is abused to absurd extends.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Indeed. Some stores sell this license above market rate as well compared to an actual purchase of a good. Infuriating.
inlined 7y ago
That’s a descriptive argument (describing what is, based on technicalities). I’m making a proscriptive argument about what should be. When DRM replaces an entire market, it’s reasonable for customers to have similar expectations. Eg when I die, I should be able to bequeath my library.
nitrogen 7y ago
Has that been decided by the courts for the various digital product types (software, books, music, videos, etc.)?
cortesoft 7y ago
So does the first sale doctrine not have any teeth at all? What is to stop companies from throwing a license on everything they sell, making the first sale doctrine meaningless? Could a bookseller add a license to a physical book, and suddenly you can't sell it or lend it out?
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > "Could a bookseller add a license to a physical book, and suddenly you can't sell it or lend it out? " Probably. I mean, they're already selling physical items laden with DRM (DVD/bluray), presumably in those cases they are selling you "a license to watch the disk." The ability to restrict first sale of DRM'd movies is probably on their TODO list I'd wager, or their list of greatest regrets. Incidentally, years ago, they did manage to invent a self-destructing DVD obsensibly for rental-without-return purposes. Technology Connections has a good video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccneE_gkSAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccneE_gkSAs
  - zaroth 7y ago
    The actual answer appears to be that you can sell add-on digital content which is licensed only for sale with the physical item, and that’s OK. But you cannot add license terms to the physical book itself, the book can be resold freely. That’s recently been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Hypothetically if they had the technology to create a paperback book that self-destructs when anybody but you opens it, would that business model be illegal? As far as I know, SCOTUS said companies can't use the legal system to prevent resale of their books. But did they say that technical solutions are also banned?
      - zaroth 7y ago
        If you buy a product which is designed for a single use, knowing that it’s a single use product, and obviously this is something that would have to fail gracefully and safely, I really don’t see a problem with that. Obviously companies (and therefore customers) should be paying for the ecological impact of their waste product.
dabockster 7y ago
Forget sale doctrines, DRM effectively prevents a consumer from leaving to a competing service. It seems to me to be more of a matter of antitrust law since it gives a company way too much control over how a consumer, well, consumes.
- scarface74 7y ago
  There is one partial exception - digital movies. Movies Anywhere is owned by Disney but is a partnership with four other studios. You can buy a movie from iTunes, Amazon Prime, Google Play, or Vudu and get credit for purchasing it from other stores.
deogeo 7y ago
But did they use the word 'buy' in their online store? Did they list the item as 'book title' instead of 'book title license'? I'm sure there's a "licensed, not sold" line buried somewhere in the EULA, but why would that take precedence over the prominently-displayed "buy"? Is the "buy" a lie? If so, how is a consumer supposed to know which statements are lies and which are not? For all they know, the EULA could be the lying one. This is all from a US point of view - Europe has disallowed using such shenanigans to rob consumers of their rights: https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3134867/eu-court-of-justice-used-software-download-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3134867/eu-court-of-justic...
- inlined 7y ago
  I keep hearing complaints in the US that EU regulations strangle companies, but as a consumer I’m wildly envious. When I vaped, I tried to get a new disposable part in the EU. I had to upgrade my whole mod because the parts on the market in the US were illegal in the EU because they leaked. The US is sold products that force you to buy more “juice” and make messes. And in the EU, the juice flavors must each pass tests to show they’re not harmful. In the US that’s considered an undue burden.
  - xondono 7y ago
    Conversely, the US is far more strict with diesel emissions, while the EU allows for a LOT more loopholes to favor certain companies that prop up certain economies..
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      That's a difference in priority between particulate emissions and CO2 emissions, right? With one favoring a relative reduction in soot and the other favoring a relative reduction in CO2. That's my understanding anyway, I'm not a car guy.
      - namibj 7y ago
        Not soot. Nitrogen oxides (NOx). Soot is easily taken care of and tires create a lot or particulate emissions from road travel.
olliej 7y ago
The button says buy and purchase. Not rent or lease. If it was honest and said that I suspect fewer people would buy them. Sorry, license them.
- techslave 7y ago
  but you are buying. a license.
  - thejenk 7y ago
    The argument is that if you are buying a licence, the retailer is obligated to tell you you're buying a licence. Current advertising, shopping, and checkout flows instead communicate that you are buying an eBook.

toast0 7y ago

For 2, it's unlikely. When pushed on DRM shutdowns and loss of use, surviving businesses usually refund purchases. It's going to be really tough to show harm, when the purchase has been refunded (or offered to be refuneded).

guitarbill 7y ago
presumably they do this to avoid getting sued and having a precedent set though?
throwaway2048 7y ago
From past shutdowns, I've never seen anything that past purchases are refunded, such as when Microsoft killed off Plays4Sure (ironically).
lsc 7y ago
"Microsoft will refund customers in full for what they paid, plus an extra $25 if they made annotations or mark-ups." that... I mean, if they automatically refund everyone? that sounds... really pretty good? I mean, I've got a few grand into my kindle books. I bet I have more than a grand in obsolete technical books alone. If the kindle was no longer the dominant platform (or rather, if there was another platform with more books) if you wanted to pay me several thousand dollars to re-buy my library on a different platform? Sure, I'd take that deal. (I mean, if it's not an automatic refund, if it's instead the more usual "we'll refund if you remember to call us between this time and that time, and if you are willing to argue for hours, that is a very different sort of thing, of course. I just think you can make the argument that we should be very forgiving of businesses if they want to unwind in a way that causes them to refund every penny of revenue they ever acquired.)
- reaperducer 7y ago
  if you wanted to pay me several thousand dollars to re-buy my library on a different platform? Sure, I'd take that deal And what do you do when the media you want isn't available on another platform? In the recent article about the burning of the Universal music archive we learned that less than 11% of recorded music is available online. Anyone who subscribes to a streaming service knows content comes and goes. The only way to keep the things you buy is to actually own them. Not continually rent them from one online service after another.