5 ms·

When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. For example, depending on the EULA (and also jurisd

When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. For example, depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media, because you no longer have the permission to use them, even though you already paid for it.

dpark 14y ago
> depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media What? If ever a citation was needed, it's now.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  I don't know what kind of a 'citation' you're looking for. It's possible to write language like that into a license for use; whether or not that's enforceable is a function of several variables, such as how the license is written, which jurisdiction we're talking about, and which legal authority happens to comment on it. Say I provide some lawyer or judge who confirms this, and you find another who disagrees. There's no conflict there; my whole point is that this is a matter of legal opinion, and therefore a possibility. Contrast to sale of a physical good, where the first-sale doctrine means that such restrictions on subsequent sale and use can't exist. (The implication is that the same would apply to DRM-free media, because a lack of DRM means that they can't enforce any such restrictions, either through practical means or through legal channels).
  - true_religion 14y ago
    This is a pretty easy one. EULAs are generally public information linked to on the internet. Just link to the EULA that contains language that may indicate you need to delete your ebooks on declaring bankrupcy. If its 50 pages long, it might be helpful to provide a quote or two. Or link to someone elese who has done that analysis like say groklaw.
  - dpark 14y ago
    So what I'm hearing is that you basically made this up. >It's possible to write language like that into a license for use It's possible to write anything into the license. An MP3 license agreement could say that you have to eat a pound of chalk every time you play the song. That doesn't make it legally enforceable. Your hypothetical "bankruptcy clause" seems like it fits in this same category. Why would a judge ever agree that this is enforceable when it's so pointless and arbitrary?
jspthrowaway 14y ago
> When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. What license do you use for software that you write?
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  Please explain why that's at all remotely relevant to the issue of Amazon's DRM vs. DRM-free ebooks, and not just an excuse to start yet another HN GPL vs. BSD flamewar.
  - jspthrowaway 14y ago
    That's a poor and incorrect assumption of what I'm arguing. Do you always counter someone's question with an assumption of what they're going to say? I hate people that do that with a fiery passion, particularly when bucketed into a group that I'm not even representing. My point is, you say "when [you] buy something, [you] want to know it's yours", the corollary being that you dislike software licenses entirely. Any software with a license is DRM-protected, including GPL and BSD software or software with a EULA. The operating system that you are currently using is licensed to you. There's probably nothing on your computer that you own aside from things you have created yourself. You have purchased or downloaded the software, yes, but the author has licensed it to you under specific terms. It is not yours. That is DRM. Anybody who hates DRM and continues to enforce a software license on their work, GPL or not, is experiencing cognitive dissonance (Richard Stallman included). GPL is actually one of the worst of the bunch because it mandates how you can redistribute things you build with "what is yours". Is this an ideal world? No. Is it the world we live in right now? Yes. I will not assume what your response will be, to your respect.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      I'm sorry you hate me with a fiery passion. I can assure you the feeling is not mutual. I don't see the contradiction. Stallman would agree that the GPL isn't ideal; he'd say it's a hack designed to twist our broken legal system into respecting our fundamental freedoms. The GPL is almost an anti-license, since it exists solely to do the exact opposite of what copyright laws and licenses are intended to do (restrict freedoms). Put another way: yes, it's using the system, but any attempt to change the system from within is, by definition, 'using the system'. If our laws deemed proprietary software licenses to be non-enforceable, I doubt anybody (Stallman included) would see the need for the GPL.

dpark 14y ago

> depending on the EULA (and also jurisdiction), if you declare bankruptcy, you have to delete all your local copies of DRM-ed media What? If ever a citation was needed, it's now.

chimeracoder 14y ago
I don't know what kind of a 'citation' you're looking for. It's possible to write language like that into a license for use; whether or not that's enforceable is a function of several variables, such as how the license is written, which jurisdiction we're talking about, and which legal authority happens to comment on it. Say I provide some lawyer or judge who confirms this, and you find another who disagrees. There's no conflict there; my whole point is that this is a matter of legal opinion, and therefore a possibility. Contrast to sale of a physical good, where the first-sale doctrine means that such restrictions on subsequent sale and use can't exist. (The implication is that the same would apply to DRM-free media, because a lack of DRM means that they can't enforce any such restrictions, either through practical means or through legal channels).
- true_religion 14y ago
  This is a pretty easy one. EULAs are generally public information linked to on the internet. Just link to the EULA that contains language that may indicate you need to delete your ebooks on declaring bankrupcy. If its 50 pages long, it might be helpful to provide a quote or two. Or link to someone elese who has done that analysis like say groklaw.
- dpark 14y ago
  So what I'm hearing is that you basically made this up. >It's possible to write language like that into a license for use It's possible to write anything into the license. An MP3 license agreement could say that you have to eat a pound of chalk every time you play the song. That doesn't make it legally enforceable. Your hypothetical "bankruptcy clause" seems like it fits in this same category. Why would a judge ever agree that this is enforceable when it's so pointless and arbitrary?

jspthrowaway 14y ago

> When I buy something, I like to know it's mine, rather than just 'in my possession with permission to use'. What license do you use for software that you write?

chimeracoder 14y ago
Please explain why that's at all remotely relevant to the issue of Amazon's DRM vs. DRM-free ebooks, and not just an excuse to start yet another HN GPL vs. BSD flamewar.
- jspthrowaway 14y ago
  That's a poor and incorrect assumption of what I'm arguing. Do you always counter someone's question with an assumption of what they're going to say? I hate people that do that with a fiery passion, particularly when bucketed into a group that I'm not even representing. My point is, you say "when [you] buy something, [you] want to know it's yours", the corollary being that you dislike software licenses entirely. Any software with a license is DRM-protected, including GPL and BSD software or software with a EULA. The operating system that you are currently using is licensed to you. There's probably nothing on your computer that you own aside from things you have created yourself. You have purchased or downloaded the software, yes, but the author has licensed it to you under specific terms. It is not yours. That is DRM. Anybody who hates DRM and continues to enforce a software license on their work, GPL or not, is experiencing cognitive dissonance (Richard Stallman included). GPL is actually one of the worst of the bunch because it mandates how you can redistribute things you build with "what is yours". Is this an ideal world? No. Is it the world we live in right now? Yes. I will not assume what your response will be, to your respect.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    I'm sorry you hate me with a fiery passion. I can assure you the feeling is not mutual. I don't see the contradiction. Stallman would agree that the GPL isn't ideal; he'd say it's a hack designed to twist our broken legal system into respecting our fundamental freedoms. The GPL is almost an anti-license, since it exists solely to do the exact opposite of what copyright laws and licenses are intended to do (restrict freedoms). Put another way: yes, it's using the system, but any attempt to change the system from within is, by definition, 'using the system'. If our laws deemed proprietary software licenses to be non-enforceable, I doubt anybody (Stallman included) would see the need for the GPL.