4 ms·

It appears that Apple is throwing caution to the wind and opening themselves up for a slew of lawsuits over… iBooks. Really? Even if a corporation doesn’t like

It appears that Apple is throwing caution to the wind and opening themselves up for a slew of lawsuits over… iBooks. Really? Even if a corporation doesn’t like us messing with their perfect OS, they can’t stop us from doing what’s legal. Sigh. Someone else who doesn't understand our rights include the right to enter into a contract that places burdens on both parties. There's no legal or moral reason that Apple can't say "I'll sell you this for $X plus your promise not to do $Y.". You don't have to like it -- in which case you shouldn't make the agreement -- but it's certainly not wrong.

lukifer 16y ago
Though I consider the specific situation with iBooks and DRM to be both mild and reasonable, it does invoke a thorny legal and moral question: exactly how much of your rights are you allowed to sign away voluntarily? Extreme ends of the spectrum are very clear: selling yourself into indentured servitude is a violation of basic human rights, while selling your time for eight hours a day is not. Many advocates for digital freedom would argue that allowing customers (particularly the non-tech-savvy who don't know what they're agreeing to) to give up the rights to their devices and content is inherently immoral. I don't agree entirely, but I see their point, and if there was a ballot initiative proposing consumer protections against things like DRM lock-in, I would likely vote for it.
ig1 16y ago
Yes there are. There are plenty of rights which the law gives you which you can't surrender, because they occur in asymmetric situations where one party has more power than the other. For example you can't sell yourself into slavery and you can't surrender your right to reverse engineer a technology (in most developed countries). Anti-competitive practices is another area where the law has intervened in these sort of situations in the past. For example in the case of printer ink refills (although the law has chosen not to intervene in the console market).
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  We could have all kinds of debate here. I assume that we can all agree on the slavery part, but I'm not so sure about the reverse engineering one. Your personal feelings may differ, of course, but I'm having trouble constructing an argument against the signing-away of reverse engineering rights, from basic natural law principles. Here's another fun example: clearly the right to free speech is fundamental, at least to those in our society. So how is it that a court can uphold, e.g., an NDA?

lukifer 16y ago

Though I consider the specific situation with iBooks and DRM to be both mild and reasonable, it does invoke a thorny legal and moral question: exactly how much of your rights are you allowed to sign away voluntarily? Extreme ends of the spectrum are very clear: selling yourself into indentured servitude is a violation of basic human rights, while selling your time for eight hours a day is not. Many advocates for digital freedom would argue that allowing customers (particularly the non-tech-savvy who don't know what they're agreeing to) to give up the rights to their devices and content is inherently immoral. I don't agree entirely, but I see their point, and if there was a ballot initiative proposing consumer protections against things like DRM lock-in, I would likely vote for it.

ig1 16y ago

Yes there are. There are plenty of rights which the law gives you which you can't surrender, because they occur in asymmetric situations where one party has more power than the other. For example you can't sell yourself into slavery and you can't surrender your right to reverse engineer a technology (in most developed countries). Anti-competitive practices is another area where the law has intervened in these sort of situations in the past. For example in the case of printer ink refills (although the law has chosen not to intervene in the console market).

CWuestefeld 16y ago
We could have all kinds of debate here. I assume that we can all agree on the slavery part, but I'm not so sure about the reverse engineering one. Your personal feelings may differ, of course, but I'm having trouble constructing an argument against the signing-away of reverse engineering rights, from basic natural law principles. Here's another fun example: clearly the right to free speech is fundamental, at least to those in our society. So how is it that a court can uphold, e.g., an NDA?