19 ms·

Make the customers of digital goods first-in-line creditors. It's basically goods stolen from people, at the moment of shutting down - they should be first in l

Make the customers of digital goods first-in-line creditors. It's basically goods stolen from people, at the moment of shutting down - they should be first in line. Most companies don't shut down when they run out of their last dollar; Rather, they shut down when they have more liabilities than assets. The result would be that traditional creditors will demand an escrow for that digital data before giving any money (or providing products before payment), to make sure that they are not bypassed -- which would be the desired result for everyone.

SilasX 6y ago
Agreed, I've long felt the same way about gift cards. And pensions, for that matter. (Which shouldn't be controversial, but is, at least for the Post Office.)
- beagle3 6y ago
  In most of Europe AFAIK, pensions are in even better status than first-in-line creditors: Money must be continuously deposited to a pension fund, not just an IOU.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    The US migrated to the system of required pre-funding too, but not with pension priority over creditors. They get dumped on the PBGC.
setr 6y ago
>It's basically goods stolen from people, at the moment of shutting down - they should be first in line No its not. You've only agreed to RENT a book for an unspecified amount of time. You never owned a thing, and thus nothing was stolen from you. Ownership doesn't exist in the digital marketplace; if you really wanted to do something so stupid as to OWN a good, you'd pirate it. Note that for goods like DVDs you're still only purchasing the right to access the data.. you didn't actually take ownership of anything more than the physical disk. Hence, the OP has lost nothing they had... because they had nothing to begin with !
- beagle3 6y ago
  When I watch movies on Amazon Video, I. An choose “Buy” or “Rent”, not “rent for a day” vs. “rent until amazon decides I don’t deserve it” Copyright is the specific rule under which I get the copy when I buy a DVD, not some random license written by the company producing the DVD. Fair use and all. This word play would not be found funny in court (or at least shouldn’t be)
  - setr 6y ago
    https://www.primevideo.com/help/ref=atv_hp_cnt?_encoding=UTF8&nodeId=202095500 https://www.primevideo.com/help/ref=atv_hp_cnt?_encoding=UTF... Viewing Period: Indefinite -- you may watch and re-watch your purchased videos as often as you want and as long as you want (subject to the limitations described in the Amazon Prime Video Terms of Use). It's not copyright, as I understand it -- its terms of service.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      "purchased" video. The "terms of use" limitation does not say "until we go bankrupt" or "until we decide to not let you for business reasons", and it does say "purchased videos". That has a well defined meaning, which contract weasel words can't change. Courts in Europe have ordered refunds for e.g. PS3 updates that removed Linux abilities - I'm sure the weasel legalese originally said Sony is allowed to do that. There is a law of the land, and it is not overriden by an amazon webpage in general, even if it does in some US states. If Amazon folds, how come my "purchased" video disappears with it? Words have a meaning that cannot just be redefined at will with legalese. Try to pay someone salary, subject to the limitation that it is in negative dollars, and see how far that gets you in court. So far, companies like Microsoft who shut down their DRM services have refunded those purchases ; Companies that folded did not. I suspect if Microsoft got to court without a refund, court would have ordered them to refund or give a DRM-free copy. Either way, it's clear that for Microsoft, the public relation + court costs outweighed the refund cost. My suggestion is to make that effectively law, so that not just microsoft (who stand to lose from this action) would actually consider it a-priori.

SilasX 6y ago

Agreed, I've long felt the same way about gift cards. And pensions, for that matter. (Which shouldn't be controversial, but is, at least for the Post Office.)

beagle3 6y ago
In most of Europe AFAIK, pensions are in even better status than first-in-line creditors: Money must be continuously deposited to a pension fund, not just an IOU.
- SilasX 6y ago
  The US migrated to the system of required pre-funding too, but not with pension priority over creditors. They get dumped on the PBGC.

setr 6y ago

>It's basically goods stolen from people, at the moment of shutting down - they should be first in line No its not. You've only agreed to RENT a book for an unspecified amount of time. You never owned a thing, and thus nothing was stolen from you. Ownership doesn't exist in the digital marketplace; if you really wanted to do something so stupid as to OWN a good, you'd pirate it. Note that for goods like DVDs you're still only purchasing the right to access the data.. you didn't actually take ownership of anything more than the physical disk. Hence, the OP has lost nothing they had... because they had nothing to begin with !

beagle3 6y ago
When I watch movies on Amazon Video, I. An choose “Buy” or “Rent”, not “rent for a day” vs. “rent until amazon decides I don’t deserve it” Copyright is the specific rule under which I get the copy when I buy a DVD, not some random license written by the company producing the DVD. Fair use and all. This word play would not be found funny in court (or at least shouldn’t be)
- setr 6y ago
  https://www.primevideo.com/help/ref=atv_hp_cnt?_encoding=UTF8&nodeId=202095500 https://www.primevideo.com/help/ref=atv_hp_cnt?_encoding=UTF... Viewing Period: Indefinite -- you may watch and re-watch your purchased videos as often as you want and as long as you want (subject to the limitations described in the Amazon Prime Video Terms of Use). It's not copyright, as I understand it -- its terms of service.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    "purchased" video. The "terms of use" limitation does not say "until we go bankrupt" or "until we decide to not let you for business reasons", and it does say "purchased videos". That has a well defined meaning, which contract weasel words can't change. Courts in Europe have ordered refunds for e.g. PS3 updates that removed Linux abilities - I'm sure the weasel legalese originally said Sony is allowed to do that. There is a law of the land, and it is not overriden by an amazon webpage in general, even if it does in some US states. If Amazon folds, how come my "purchased" video disappears with it? Words have a meaning that cannot just be redefined at will with legalese. Try to pay someone salary, subject to the limitation that it is in negative dollars, and see how far that gets you in court. So far, companies like Microsoft who shut down their DRM services have refunded those purchases ; Companies that folded did not. I suspect if Microsoft got to court without a refund, court would have ordered them to refund or give a DRM-free copy. Either way, it's clear that for Microsoft, the public relation + court costs outweighed the refund cost. My suggestion is to make that effectively law, so that not just microsoft (who stand to lose from this action) would actually consider it a-priori.