3 ms·

Still, this is an extreme, seemingly one-off outlier. There's nothing shady or below board about their actions. They made a mistake and made all parties whole.

Still, this is an extreme, seemingly one-off outlier. There's nothing shady or below board about their actions. They made a mistake and made all parties whole. There are plenty other reasons to argue against DRM, but I'd argue the chance this one weakens the argument.

perryizgr8 2y ago
> made all parties whole Not really. They went overboard. They reached into devices owned by their customers and deleted books without permission. That was absolutely outside of normal. Imagine amazon selling you a physical book and later sneaking into your house to take it back when they find out the seller had pirated them.
RHSeeger 2y ago
It's not about shady or below board. It's about the fact that they can, at their choice, remove books from people that have paid for them. Since they have this power, and can (effectively) use it without repercussions, it's now just a question of under what circumstances are the people in charge willing to use it. It's the same as when government agencies are given broad, sweeping powers with the explanation of "it makes it easier to do the right thing, and they won't use it to do the wrong thing". Only, the person that gets to decide what it gets used for can change. Then suddenly, they _are_ willing to use it for the wrong thing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
account42 2y ago
They didn't make all parties whole. Purchasers were deprived of access until making another purchase for which they had to expend at least some effort and time. And let's not talk about inflation and interest that mean the the price paid at purchase is not the same as the amount of additional money the buyer would have had at the time of the refund had they never made the purchase. Just returning the purchase price is far from makign a buyer whole. If I rob a bank and get caught and don't get to simply say oops and walk away scott free after returning the money.

perryizgr8 2y ago

> made all parties whole Not really. They went overboard. They reached into devices owned by their customers and deleted books without permission. That was absolutely outside of normal. Imagine amazon selling you a physical book and later sneaking into your house to take it back when they find out the seller had pirated them.

RHSeeger 2y ago

It's not about shady or below board. It's about the fact that they can, at their choice, remove books from people that have paid for them. Since they have this power, and can (effectively) use it without repercussions, it's now just a question of under what circumstances are the people in charge willing to use it. It's the same as when government agencies are given broad, sweeping powers with the explanation of "it makes it easier to do the right thing, and they won't use it to do the wrong thing". Only, the person that gets to decide what it gets used for can change. Then suddenly, they _are_ willing to use it for the wrong thing.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

account42 2y ago

They didn't make all parties whole. Purchasers were deprived of access until making another purchase for which they had to expend at least some effort and time. And let's not talk about inflation and interest that mean the the price paid at purchase is not the same as the amount of additional money the buyer would have had at the time of the refund had they never made the purchase. Just returning the purchase price is far from makign a buyer whole. If I rob a bank and get caught and don't get to simply say oops and walk away scott free after returning the money.